I know I’m opening up not just a can, but a fifty-gallon barrel of worms, but Orrin Judd asked a number of questions about evolution on his web site. Here are my responses.

Here are some questions that make me at least question the faith of the Darwinists:

(1) If evolution is a continuous process requiring millions, billions, zillions, of tiny mutations as it progresses, why haven’t we observed any of these mutations in any mammals in the thousands of years of recorded human history?

We have. In fact, we’ve caused them. Look at the wide variety of dog breeds, all of whom came from a common wolf stock. Chihuahuas and Great Danes have common ancestors. We’ve bred them for their characteristics. Most modern cattle were bred from their ancestors in the Middle East. If we were to scrupulously maintain some of them as separate, and never allow interbreeding, they’d eventually drift so far genetically that they would no longer be able to interbreed, and thus would by definition become different species. This hasn’t happened because we continue to play games and interbreed them, seeking yet new breeds.

[Thursday morning update]

I mistyped. We don’t (yet) cause mutations–we just select ones we like. Animal domestication is not natural selection–it’s artificial selection. But the principle is the same–the organism becomes more adapted to its environment, in this case the environment of people who like certain traits in dogs.

(2) Why can’t we find the fossil record that should reveal these gradual adaptations?

We can, but to the degree that there are gaps in the fossil record, it’s explained mostly by the fact that very few fossils survive. There is this misunderstanding about “transition species.” All species are transition species. All animals are transition animals. They are parts of a chain–they have ancestors different from them, and they’ll have descendants different from them (humans may be an exception to this, since we have control over our own evolution).

(3) Once an eye becomes an eye, its helpfulness is obvious, but what is the graduated process by which the eye comes into being? Are there really distinct advantages each incremental step of the way?

Yes. A skin cell that is light sensitive is more valuable than one that’s not, and is a protoeye. If its owner passes on the trait, and some of the offspring are even more light sensitive than others, they will be more successful. At some point, there may be a mutation that forms a primitive lense, in the form of some clear cells over the light-sensitive ones. It may not focus well, but it might protect the underlying cells, and thus be useful. It will then eventually evolve into a lense.

“In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is King”

(4) And how many steps would be required? If we’ve been in a several thousand year pause in evolution and presumably such pauses occur with some regularity, plus all the tiny steps required, plus the die-offs from catastrophic events, has there really been time enough for man to rise from a single cell?

I don’t know why you claim we’re in a “pause” in evolution (as far as I know, we’re not–the laws of nature have not been suspended) unless you’re referring to humans specifically, but ten thousand years is the blink of an eye, particularly for a species with a generation time of a couple decades. We’ve had hundreds of millions of years to evolve. It seems like plenty of time to me.

If humans haven’t evolved much physically, it’s because we’ve eased the pressure to do so with technology. But there are still a wide variety of human breeds (like dog breeds). Compare an Inuit to a Bushman–they are both well adapted to their environments.

(5) If we developed those eyes because they gave us certain adaptive advantages, why didn’t we develop wings too or claws or whatever?

Because there are costs of doing that. We were successful the way we were, wingless and clawless. It’s harder to throw a spear, or fire a gun with a clawed hand…

(6) If we arose from the same chain as primates, why is that the only chain that produced human-style consciousness? Why aren’t there really smart dogs and alligators, etc. Why did those species have ceilings while we don’t seem to?

We don’t know for sure that it is. Cetaceans may have “human-style consciousness.” But we don’t know that those species have “ceilings.” Just because they haven’t developed sapience doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future. We just happened (as far as we know) to be the first. Someone had to be. Intelligence isn’t necessarily an inevitable by-product of evolution. It’s possibly something that we just stumbled upon. Dennett has written some very interesting books on this subject.

(7) Now that we comprehend evolution can we any longer be subject to its forces or are we by our very understanding of it become an “unnaturally selecting” species, thereby removing ourselves from the process?

As described above, we have done exactly that. And in the future we will take it one step further with nanotechnology and genetic engineering (regardless of how many laws the U.S Congress passes against it).

(8) Why isn’t there intelligent life anywhere else? If there is, what’s the answer to Fermi’s question : where are they? And, if we’re alone, mightn’t we be the point of the universe, the reason it exists?

We don’t know that there isn’t. But it’s possible that the conditions for life are exceedingly rare. Whole books have been written on this subject, including the anthropic principle. And in fact, to the degree that I have a religion, I do believe that we (that is, life) are the point of the universe.

(9) If propagation of the species is the be all and end all, why do we slaughter each other in war, genocide, etc.? Why would we have developed the power (nuclear weapons, global warming, whatever) to end all life on Earth? How can this mechanism allow us to be such a threat to ourselves?

Because evolution is blind and dumb. It has no predictive capability. There’s no way for our genes to know that the features that they’ve developed for the purpose of propagating individuals thousands of years ago might have an emergent property of killing vast numbers of other individuals in the future.

But you’re overstating the problem. We don’t even have the capability to end the existence of humanity, let alone life on earth. Earth will abide, no matter how stupid we are, though it may not be a pleasant place for our descendants.

(10) What came before the Big Bang?

Who knows? Who made God?

(11) Ozzy Osbourne?

Some questions are truly beyond understanding.