The orderliness and intelligibility of the natural world are two of its uniquely spectacular features. Our entire program of scientific investigation, formulation of natural laws, and the organization of information into distinct categories…is built upon these two pillars of reality.
For macroevolution to attempt to explain the origin of the orderliness and intelligibility of the living biological world…using as change agents the opposite and contrary concepts of blind, mindless, unguided, indifferent, trial-and-error, genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection…to create the organized diversity of life we observe in the world today…should be suspect for its inconsistency…for its non-correspondence to observable reality…for its mysterious and nonsensical leap from randomly unguided processes according to naturalism…to the brilliantly ordered and intelligible diversity of life we see today.
From the standpoint of the history of science…the living biological world is not at all like the slow-moving geological phenomenon of water and wind erosion, plate tectonics, mountain building subduction zones, rivers that carve out ravines and canyons, and the buildup of water-born sediments over long periods of time to form river deltas…all having initial starting points in the distant past, momentum in certain fixed directions, and easily discernable end-points that demonstrate change over some interval of time…in a rigidly deterministic way.
Inanimate, non-living things like mountains, rivers, oceans, lakes, rainfall, snow, wind, and storms do not contain the billions of bits of genetic information that differentiate living from non-living things.
Non-living things do not contain genes, do not compete for survival, and do not sexually reproduce.
Non-living things do not contain microscopic living cells having miniature biochemical machines of fantastic complexity…coordinating massive amounts of information…that can copy themselves according to a pre-ordered program…to replicate new living cells.
There is no reason that the orderliness and intelligibility of the immensely more complex diversity of life…should be analogous as an explanation for its origin…to the slow-moving, deliberate pace of change we see in non-living phenomenon like geology.
The analogy of the living world…to geology…is like comparing apples to oranges…but more precisely very complex and complicated apples…to relatively very simple oranges.
The influence of Charles Lyell’s gradualism in geology upon Darwin’s thinking in crafting his theory of evolution in biology…is now seen from the viewpoint in this new Age of Information…in the recent recognition of complex, high specified, and coherently integrated systems of information in the phenomenon of the natural world…as being inconsistent, inapplicable, and misleading as an analogy to Darwinian macro evolution.
A hybrid blend of the radical change required to produce the diversity of life today…with gradual change over long periods of time like we see in geology…should result in a myriad of ongoing macroevolution clearly observable today in the form of animals and plants part-way in transition toward their future end-point outcomes.
Slow-up the rate of change…that Darwinists already claim for macro evolution…and it becomes untenable as a plausible explanation for the vastly creative, imaginative diversity of the living and non-living world.
Speed-up the rate of change and macro evolution would be so dynamic that it would be visually observable and apparent to everyone.
But open-up the genetic boundary limits around species altogether…remove the bracketed upper and lower defining boundary-lines around animals, flowers, vegetables, and fruits…for example…and we have a hypothetical world that does not match the natural world we observe today.
In my opinion, Darwin’s theoretical extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is brilliantly revolutionary…in its conceptual simplicity and originality…of removing the limiting boundaries around species in an ever expanding, common-descent tree-of-life…but that Darwinism upon closer scrutiny paints an imaginary ancient picture of continuous and unending radical change in the natural world…that compared with the scientific fact-based evidence observed in the natural living world today…is a fiction.
Linking together ancient fossils according to dates, physical similarities, and DNA comparisons according to a working program of common descent…which is a necessary, commendable, and normal task of scientific inquiry…nonetheless transforms itself into a hypothetical fiction when this pursuit goes beyond the outer edges of the well-established scientific fact-based evidence for microevolution…when it is used to extend its findings as an argument for open-ended macroevolutionary change.
Semantically confusing the words microevolution and macroevolution together into the single term evolution is a hypothetical over-reach that was not supported or justified by the empirical evidence in 1859…is still unsupported by scientific fact-based evidence today…and is the author of much ambiguity in the discussions on Darwinian macroevolution.
The generic word evolution…when it refers to biological history…should be more accurately split into micro and macro.
Micro and macro evolution are two entirely different things.
Where should we draw the line between micro and macro evolution? We should draw the line where it belongs…between empirical facts and speculative theory.
The microevolution half of Darwin’s book The Origin of Species is spot-on…evidenced by enumerable examples observable in the natural world of small adaptive changes within species over time…combined with the obvious evidence for the variability within species for change…demonstrated in the human activity of artificial selection in plant and animal breeding.
The understandably alluring temptation for Darwin to take it a step further in his research and in his book…to theorize the hypothetical extrapolation to macroevolution using a purely naturalistic program…to make an argument for macroevolutionary change in the living world according to common descent…by necessity explodes the boundary limits around genetic variability.
A person like me…reading The Origin of Species…without having a starting bias of naturalistic materialism…quickly notices that Darwin does not specifically differentiate between micro and macro evolution…but uses the single term evolution for the detailed arguments throughout his book.
I have to consciously make a mental interpolation between micro and macro evolution as I read through each chapter of The Origin of Species…recognizing that Darwin went all-out in favor of the macro half of his theory.
As the title of his book implies…Darwin went for the whole enchilada…in courageously making the full argument for macroevolution in the naturalistic explanation for the origin of species.
But what is extremely important to discern at the beginning of this discussion, is that instead of being able to simply point to its obvious operation in full action in the natural world…at that time in 1859…as clearly recognizable and observably empirical facts that stand on their own as evidence…the Darwinian macroevolutionary half of the data presented…curiously refutes itself at the outset…by the very need to approach the argument…in every case without exception…from the sole direction of hypothetical theorizing.
If true in 1859 and true today…the macroevolution half of the origin of species would be so obvious as to need no bold introduction into the marketplace of ideas, no defense, and no speculative theory requiring further scientific investigation over the past roughly 160 years.
It is my contention in this book…that if the limiting boundaries around species are removed…if these boundary constraints to unlimited genetic variation do not exist…not only would the orderliness and intelligibility of the natural living world that we critically rely upon for the creation of the science of taxonomy…the meaningful classification of living things into groups…fly out the window…but this would also allow for revolutionary variant traits for adaptation and the enumerable transitional pathways to the origin of new species…that would be so everyday ordinarily obvious…as to not require a hypothetical argument for this extrapolation from micro to macro…at all.
In my opinion…macroevolution is in that rare territory where it is either obviously true…and if not…it is obviously false…without a happy middle-ground center.
Macroevolution is a pure either/or proposition. It is either obviously true…and if it falls short of this basic visual test…of being clearly seen among the phenomenon of the natural world…then it is obviously not true.
This is one of several general arguments for why Darwinian macro evolution cannot be true…this being a non-technical argument accessible to expert scientists and to the general public today…open to easy contemplation as disqualifying evidence to the macro half…the bold theoretical assertion…of Darwinian evolution.
It is one of the contentions in this book…that if macroevolution is true…it would be so prolific…so profuse in nature…so ongoing in its outwardly obvious recognition…that it would enjoy the same empirical evidentiary status as the daily appearance of the noonday sun.
The commonsense fact that has been missed in the Darwinian debate…or at least temporarily set aside as unanswerable until more data can be obtained…is that a conceptually theoretical extrapolation starting from the diversification of finch birds on 13 varied oceanic islands in the Galapagos Archipelago…to become the expanded, all-encompassing explanation for the origin of eyesight, avionic flight, the human intellectual capacity to conduct scientific investigations, and the billions of unique architectural body-plans with their accompanying lifestyle habits we can observe and differentiate into sensible taxonomic groupings…requires open genetic borders around species for continuous, ongoing, radically new genetic and lifestyle-habit variations…that we emphatically do not see as confirming evidence in the present-time natural world…anywhere.
This single, scientific evidentiary fact should be immediately obvious and uncontroversial to both scientists and lay observers today…extending backwards in time as observable fact to the dawn of human civilization…long before the start of the modern Scientific Revolution.
If this contention holds true…if open-ended and randomly ungoverned macroevolution today…should exhibit an enormous number of individual species part-way in their development…caught mid-stream in our current snapshot of time…being 20, 30, 40, or 90 percent complete toward some future developmental end-point outcome…obvious to everyone…then again…Charles Darwin’s macroevolutionary component in The Origin of Species refutes itself by its very introduction into the marketplace of new ideas…as late in the Scientific Revolution as 1859.
If macroevolution was the revolutionary, radical change-agent that it should be if it is true…then it would be so obvious as to render the book The Origin of Species unnecessary and superfluous as to the reality of macroevolution.
But a book written in 1859 observing, describing, and critically analyzing microevolution…absent macroevolution…as seen in the radiation of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands…would be an important and novel discovery…timed perfectly within the middle of the Scientific Revolution…in the mid-19th century burgeoning field of biological science.
But the title of Darwin’s book is not Microevolution in the Development of Immutable Species.
The full title is: On The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.
Charles Darwin tells us exactly where he intends to go in his book…as he should…in the book’s title.
If open-ended and randomly unguided macroevolution without genetic boundaries is true…we should expect to see today a veritable three-ring circus of enumerable examples of animals and plants…unmistakably progressing along experimental pathways testing out undeveloped, genetic variant traits before our eyes…with no rhyme or reason, and no momentum in any discernable direction other than for immediate, competitive survival and reproduction…as guided by natural selection.