There is no evidence that the Earth's biological history or "evolution" (as it has been termed) is a mechanical process of increasing fitness and utility over time.

What of "survival of the fittest?" the philosopher Nietzsche pointed out, survival of the fittest happens, but is meaningless most of the time, because the vast majority of organisms do not fight, do not kill for food, and do not compete for territory in such a way that cause competitors to die out.

The utilitarian aspect of the darwinian theory is quite subjective. The utility of an "adaptation" is relative to the use sought to be made of it. A species without feathers has no need of feathers. A feather which gradually evolves would be a positive disadvantage over the "millions of years" necessary to perfect the feather. Furthermore, how did this process start? For an "adaptation" to be utile, it must be ready; while it is being prepared it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not darwinian, for darwinianism says evolution is utilitarian.

Why is it that the "lower" forms (e.g. the horseshoe crab), those which are simpler (less fit?) have not died out, and have not yielded to the principle of evolution? They remain in the same form they have had for vast expanses of the fossil record. Why do they not "evolve" into something "higher?"

The Enzymes Effect

The Enzymes Effect

Enzymes which are usually proteins help to begin, aid in and accelerate every chemical reaction in the human body. Enzymes are the bodys main workforce, much like a construction company building a skyscraper.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment