Have you ever really thought about what evolution is about?
Have you ever doubted if what your textbook have been telling you was true?
Do you really believe that your ancerstors are apes, you know, the monkeys you see in the zoo?
Do you really think that the flowers blooming in the wild field will one day have legs and one day walk out that field to use computer like I do now?
Do we have enough evidence, or even any evidence at all, that evolution really explains how we came to be?
Let’s put this in front now.
I DON’T BELIEVE EVOLUTION.
First, I believe by faith what bible says about us that God created us all in the sixth day after the creation of the whole earth. [Genesis 1:27] Second, the “theory” of evolution does not have enough evidence, or any evidence at all, that it is indeed how human beings come to exist. Some even say that evolution is no “theory” at all according to the definition of “theory” in which it states that:
“A theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory]
Based on this definition, some say that the evolution “theory” that we are talking about in the science class is something that we can neither test by experiments nor use to predict the future occurrences of the similar events, thus being merely an idea, not a theory.
So, am I going to get myself into an ever heated big discussion and debate today about whether evolution is true or not true? Nah. I’m not all prepared for it. I mean, I could, by gathering all the literatures and existing science evidences and laws (e.g. the laws of energy conservation in physics that states “things tend to go into disorder, a chaos, instead of an order.”) just to make my point that God’s creation of the universe including us, the human beings, may be a new option of thinking to some of you. But, that’s not what I intend to do today. It’s a tedious and very time-consuming work. I have a Dutch exam tomorrow and have to study for it because I’m no genius. So, unfortunately, I do not have time to do it, either. I just wanted to share an insight that I had through my little dream this morning. Although I am no big scientist at all, being a science major student since my high school years, I do think about science problems every now and then. And, sometimes our dreams give us the very answer to our question that no genius can ever give. Just like Watson and Click got their long-wanted answer of the double-helix structure of DNA through a weird dream in which a snake bit his own tail, my dream may also give me some enlightening answer to my probing of truth. Please excuse me for writing in English instead of Chinese or Japanese, which I may add to this original writing after my Dutch exam.
Firstly, as we know, one of the “evidence” that the scientists use to support the “theory” of evolution is the fossils. The fossils of shells, bones of fish, fish with legs, fish with lungs, etc. etc. They say that these demonstrate the gradual migration of fish from the water habitats into the dry land. The similar debate is given to the “evolution” of plants as well. Ok. It’s cool. Yeah, the fossil evidence does give us a vision of a gradual change of the organisms and the migrating of these organisms out their original habitats into some new habitats. Secondly, Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” has been used to explain how some living creatures “evolved” from their original forms to the organisms with some new characteristics and features to better survive in their harsh environments. The example of the giraffes is a classic. It is said that the giraffes in the early days had shorter necks. But, living in a land with taller trees, those with longer necks probably due to a mutation had survived better because the longer necks allowed them to reach their food, the tree leaves. And, as the time goes by, the shorter-necked giraffes died out, and the longer-necked giraffes that we see today won the competition. In this way, the nature selected the better surviving species, and these are how all the organisms that we see today came to be. Make perfect sense. I totally agree with the idea of natural selection.
Now, I would love to probe a little bit into these claiming, however, that these are the “evidences” that support evolution.
First of all, the existing fossils do not support evolution. Why? Well, in order for the fossils to perfectly support evolution, as some scientists also point out, we also need to have the fossils of the organisms existing in between the two similar organisms A and B in which people believe that the B evolved from the A. But, we simply do not have such fossils. The fossils are inconsecutive. The A does not smoothly transform into the B. If there is not interconnecting fossils, did organism A one day, all of a sudden, decide to look like organism B? Do you think this idea is so funny and silly? I do. But, that is what people are saying when they say that the existing fossils is the evidence that support the theory of evolution. Then, why do we find the fossils with distinctive characteristics for each era? And, where did the organisms existed in the previous era go? I had a dream this morning. In the dream, somebody told me that these organisms disappeared because of the stronger or more fitted organisms in the particular era, or eaten up by their predators. For example, organisms A and B both existed in era X. And, due to some environmental changes, organism B became more and more in number enough to overcome organism A by consuming the limited resources and eventually forced organism A to extinguish. Or, organisms A and B could be in a prey-and-predator relationship, which was maintained in perfect balance. However, the over increased numbers of organism B, the predators, eventually completely depleted their prey, organism A, thus organism A extinguishing from the chains. This may explains what we are seeing in the fossils. They were all there, but just not many enough for the scientists to discover for a certain era, or became too many in number to be misunderstood as the only form of the organism existed in another era.
But, I personally believe that “natural selection” is true. But, do I think that this support evolution? No, I don’t, neither did Darwin. To my understanding, Darwin did not use his theory of natural selection to support evolution. He simply observed the way of the world and said that the organisms/species with the features that better fitted the world survive better than those without. He didn’t say, “Therefore, the evolution is true.” Natural selection is indeed a very brilliant idea to explain the phenomena of the world of the living organisms. Many of you probably know the famous example of the black and white moths living on the trees in the industrial area in the United Kingdom. However, how is this related to the evolution? Natural selection simply means that the better fitted organisms survive better in this world. However, in order for the organisms to express any particular feature, the organisms have to have that information encoded in their DNA. It was already there even if it was not expressed. Could it be a mutation, thus resulting in a new organism with new feature? Yeah, absolutely. But, I will wonder if the advantageous and “lucky” mutation may also be inherited by their offspring? Or, too bad so sad, it simply extinguishes in one generation? In such theory, the life really only depends on the “odds” of particular events. The odd is simply so small that it is almost impossible. I mean, “almost”. You can argue with me that “almost” does not mean “at all,” so it is still possible. Yeah, you are right. It can happen. And, in fact, it is probably how certain organisms that we see today came about. I agree. But, let’s go back to the original proclaim that the natural selection is how organisms evolved. Evolution states that we, the living organisms, came to be “simply by chance” from the non living organisms, in which the scientists say that the inorganic substances such as the elements in the early sea primordial soup came to stick together to be something organic by the energies possibly provided by the thunders and lightening. And, as the story goes by, these primordial “stuff” eventually became us. This also means that my computer may one day, by thunders, lightening and/or by whatever other means, become my friend (or the friend of my descendants) that I or they may have a cup of tea with. Cool, isn’t it? But, I mean, come on, what do you think? Yes, yes, you may say, “But, by odds, it can….” Totally! By odds, it always can, because again, “almost” does not mean “at all.” And, I am no God to say that it can “never” happen because I simply believe by faith that my computer or his descendants have no chance to have a cup of tea with me. Do you really want the “odds” to always take away your right of making decision and stay indecisive until the little possibility becomes purely none? Do you believe that evolution is true due to such tiny probability of non-living organisms became us “by chance”? Or do you want to make your own decision of believing whatever you are convinced with even if the odds and evidences are against your belief? This is where “faith” comes along. There are many definition of “faith”. To me, one definition of faith is “believing in unseen based on what is already seen or known despite the odds of the world.” Do you have faith that the sun will come up into the sky again tomorrow? Do you believe that your beloved continues to love you tomorrow even if you cannot see the “love” with your eyes? I do. And, I believe, so do you…
留言列表
