Lanterns: Faith in Atheism: Sciency Stuff - Part One


Faith in Atheism: Sciency Stuff - Part One

By John Frost 

This mini-series: Faith in Atheism consists of five Conservative Dialectic articles covering the science aspect of Atheism and one Dialectic of Desire article detailing the political side of this topic.

Faith in Atheism: Sciency Stuff

Part One
The Evolution Revolution
 A Conservative Dialectic

The Cambrian Error: Big Bang 2.0

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”
-- Theodosius Dobzhansky, geneticist


                                                                                               The right frame of mind

Upside down and backward

Look at this goofy looking creature. What is it that stands out about this animal? It’s beyond obvious, the spines stick out more than any of the other somewhat normal biological structures this organism holds. What does that tell us about the nature of this critter?

                                                      Initial Cambrian Explosive Defensive Adaptation

It tells us that this thing has been down a long evolutionary road. It could tell us that in fending off predators, the ancestors of this guy which randomly had coarser hair on its backs were less palatable to hungry interlopers with soft tissues lining their... whatever they used to collect food. I’m not seeing a mouth on this beast, but if it had one, coarse, stubbly hair might tend to persuade it to look elsewhere for a snack.

Over the course of eons, these ancestors blessed randomly with “punctuated” whiskers along their backs, would pass that trait along to their descendants. In theory, this would compound further into longer, more pronounced, and stiffer whiskers, and eventually, these hair-like protuberances would transcend into spiny, defensive structures. I can see that happening...
I guess.

The thing is, I know what constitutes the difference between a hair protein and the structured order offered as a horn. I also have to wonder why something inhabiting the seafloor would have hair and whether it originated as a land-based creature and what it was doing in the water. I also know that this is one of the first biological organisms ever to walk the planet, and in the big picture of things, had very, very few ancestors to speak of. 



                                                                                              Biological "Newcomer"

The “protein thing” will later be covered in this series and so since we’re here, I’ll concentrate now on what is identified as The Cambrian Explosion.

The Cambrian Explosion describes, evolutionarily speaking, a somewhat miraculous happening. For the vast, vast majority of biological time up to this point, life consisted of the most basic of organized systems. Algae-like plants, single-celled bacteria and their lessers, sponges and things, as yet undetermined, apparently neither plant nor animal, and yet somehow both that had the appearance of leaves sprouting from the sea bottom. Eon after eon - after eon - after eon - this was the situation: Stasis.

There is fossil evidence of this, and this life force is used today to power our lifestyles and our automobiles.

In the twinkling of an eye, this dramatically changed. Suddenly, the Earth’s oceans and landmasses are filled with what we witness today as a complete fossil record: An “explosion” of sorts. Complete without the prerequisite, that is…

Creatures with legs walk on dry land and the seabed. These creatures have teeth and hair and digestive tracts that can accommodate one another. There are trees and bushes and ferns where algae once reigned. There are herbivores eyeing those new plants and new carnivores returning the favor - both driven by desire. We have the soft and minute standing in the shadow of the armored, spiny and monstrous.

First, I’m going to assume the reader knows whom I speak of when I use Charles Darwin’s name when describing his [r]evolutionary thought. Second, the long, slow, and gradual evolution of Darwin is nowhere in sight with this explosion of complex animal and plant life's appearance on the Cambrian scene. And he knew that in his time. He considered it troublesome and stated it would upturn his methodology if the fossil record stood as it stood. And it has.



The bad news for Darwin is it is much worse now than ever before. What were once thought to be missing fossils from the record, yet to be found are today, a complete void of fossils and record. Every new find, found here leads to a conclusion not in favor of a Darwinistic understanding of evolution. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Darwinistically speaking:
There is not much to talk about here for the simple fact that there is not much to talk about here...

But I repeat myself.

                                                              Simple Mathematical Complexity: The Golden Mean

Punctuated Equilibrium -- Darwin’s Doubt

{Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis.}

The way I see it, this is nothing more than a way in which the Cambrian Explosion is progressed around rather than explained. The “stasis” of the reality held as the Cambrian explosion of life is something that just is in direct spite of its evolutionistic self. What I also see evolving before my very eyes is the evolutionary Theory more so than what it seeks to determine as certain. This is putting the cart before the horse, again as we’ll see later in this series and begs the question...


Voided Certainty: A tree outstanding in the forest

“If evolution really works, how come mothers only have two hands?”
 -- Milton Berle


                                          Complex, Simple and Inbetween... They're different, I get it

Other than the logic used to build this, and similar "tree" models, is there any actual evidence in existence to support this, or any of these diagrams..?


                                                   Darwin's own, first tree of life -- "I think," he writes.

When I look at these “tree of life” constructs, I see a lot of definition in the here and now at the far edges and the final branches, but the certainty of the outer terminations is not apparent in the core. These things tell us with certainty, for instance, that animals with four legs and hair are not animals with four legs and scales. And that they are not fish... Do I need this to determine the differences between animals?
Not really.

Is there any hard, physical evidence to verify this, or is it a purely logical construct..?

These “trees” are virtually identical in one way. They are all constructed, virtually void of anything, around somewhat less than obvious generalizations.

Is this actually a useful tool or just a tool to promote verification of something "obvious," but not in evidence?

                                                                              Voided Certainty

I am told that there is plenty of determined information, hard evidence held in the inner sanctums of these diagrams. If that were so, then I would think this hard data would be plotted. I don’t see any. Does any of this data actually coincide with any of the intersections of this outline, actually verifying any of this, or is this illusive, hard evidence supportive in a theoretical manner?

I see a plotted, plethora of particulars—  information on the outer ring, but none internally. Similar models, I've seen with some data added to the core consists, basically of generalized information and contains what constitutes the line rather than the point of intersection. The space held at a location right of an intersection might indicate one attribute, say four legs with hair, for instance, and left of the point will house all animals determined to have four legs with possibly a different skin type; scales or something.

I have yet to see any intersection plotted with anything other than the link, speculated to be missing from both sides of every intersection. A vacancy of usefulness and obvious associations are what I see in droves and if this is meant to show me something other than Gila monsters and Daffodils are biologically segregated from house cats and paramecium, I’m not seeing it. But it is impressive looking for what it’s worth... Quite.

                                                                               "Missing" Links

This evolutionary path purports to tell us humanity’s last few steps in stumbling forth from the primordial ooze and walk into modernity. These “finalizations” were once believed to be links missing between Homo Sapien, or modern man and a common ancestor. Instead of the presence of (I just so happen to have this one friend and I call him) the “located link,” these once-considered-links, each demand ancestry of their own. Each one of these branching intersections indicates a point of this missing linkage entailing common ancestry.

This appears to me quite the opposite of what I am led to believe. I would expect to see this tree reversed with our place, designated “Homo” at the bottom right, held in the vacant spot at the upper left. This seems antithetical to the evolutionary model.

This tree is bass-ackwards.

Common Ancestry is one of the primary statements of truth offered through biological evolution, which is posited to be, "settled science" -- a position taken to be in antithesis to the search for scientific truth. Natural Selection and an incremental progression of randomness into purpose being the others. I was wondering how settled “Common Ancestry” could be with no actual, hard, physical evidence in support of its place in the primary statement role. The disconnect seems clear -- which this vacated blueprint and others like it makes apparent, if not obvious.

Am I the only one who’d prefer to see “apparent if not obvious” associated with the evidence of “settled science” and not describing the presence of uncertainty at its core.



It is surely a minor detail to be scholarly transcended with the theoretical application of logic, but it is what it is; a statement of certainty toward what we classify as scientific truth. Logically valid does not automatically mean a statement of truth has been reached. Logically valid means a process has been followed in reaching a conclusion… That a path has been taken utilizing certainty to evolve truth into being… Certainty being crucial to what constitutes truth.

                                                                          Neanderslob... haha

We’re just getting started and Darwin’s evolutionary argument is already full of gaps... gaping holes rather, void of certainty and something of a miraculous nature seems to occupy what we’ve uncovered so far.

Something else we find abundant are “teleological fallacies” invoked to progress beyond this teleological void. Natural Selection in and of itself skates on thin ice and borders, in essence on a teleological fallacy -- as the "act" of selection entails both intelligence and purpose.

The materialistic environment in which evolution predicates, expressly forbids “teleological mannerisms” from taking place. In this context, teleology is assigning humanistic qualities to that which is unable to perform with this characteristic.

"Natural Selection" has no more ability to "decide" or select than our moon has the ability to select which planet it is to orbit.

My arguments are not limited by teleological presumption because purpose and intent are at the core of what I wish to illustrate. Evolution has only potential in dealing with the hand that fate offers and right or wrong, the path taken is the path evolution finds underfoot. With that said; evolution cannot not deal with what fate cannot offer on paths that cannot be taken, for they are teleological fallacies in a materialistic sense of being.


Part Two: The Information Super-Highway


                             Encoded Information - Meaningless Without the Containment of Context

A Conservative Dialectic is a response from a "conservative" point of view that is also a play on the word. This in the manner that cutting loose with both barrels might not seem "conservative" at all. Bear in mind, I am free, also to presume facts not in evidence with these undertakings. Other articles in this and the Dialectic of Desire series can be found here.

Written by John Frost

A fundamentally transformed Leftist apostate, politically conservative; an anarchist in the realm of grammar

0 Responses

leave a reply

login to reply to thread

Sign Up
Forgot Password