18AR23-06

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

AR 23:6 - Evolution and the influence of complexity

In this issue:

ORIGINS - discounting complexity as a challenge to evolution

+ disregarding complexity in "the race to build a brain-computer interface and outpace evolution"

Apologia Report 23:6 (1,372)

February 22, 2018

ORIGINS

"In What Version of Evolution Do You Believe?" by David Zeigler -- responds to those who "introduce unfounded beliefs to create a hybrid view of evolution that is unscientific and should not be taught in science classrooms."

Zeigler reports that "it is clear that many who say they 'accept' evolution do in fact believe in a version of evolution that is not empirically based. It is true that even scientists 'believe' that empirical objective evidence gives the most accurate information concerning the nature of the physical universe. ...

"Today evolution is well understood to be the result of several naturalistic mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, and others. Some in the intelligent design and creationists camps accept evolution in varying degrees, even with common descent, but always with the provision that God directed evolution (in some unexplained way) according to 'his' designs for life. ... We know, for example, that mutations are essential to evolution over the long haul, and evidence suggests that mutations are *random* changes in the genome. If a supernatural being caused specific mutations to occur at 'appropriate times' to bring about his desired results, how would we know? ...

"[A] great many people who claim to accept evolution actually believe in evolution through divine guidance to create not only humans but likely most of the other life forms familiar to these believers. ...

"Natural selection, though not the only cause of evolution, is still agreed by most biologists to be the major agent (along with mutation) of obvious evolutionary change, and the main point of natural selection is that it adapts species to survive and achieve genetic fitness within their local environments - *and nothing more.* In other words, there are no long-range teleological trends or directions to evolutionary change; no goals of design, complexity, or intelligence are inherent in the evolutionary process. For some, Stephen J. Gould's major lesson in his many eloquent writings was his continued emphasis on this important point. As he put it: 'We are glorious accidents of an unpredictable process with no drive to complexity.'

"Other workers have also made this point: 'Life is not oriented towards increasing complexity, nor is it fated to become ever more complex.' [1] ...

"Evolution has been characterized almost a much by loss of complexity as by its increase, with much of biodiversity remaining simple for the whole scope of evolutionary history. ... There is certainly no evidence of a *drive* (as Gould put it) toward complexity in the evolutionary process. ...

"We may never know whether over 99 percent of the species that ever lived are extinct due to selective pressures or to bad luck (undoubtedly some of both), but either way the graveyard of species is beyond imagining. Also, across all species an average 95 percent or more of each new generation is eliminated early in life by lady luck or by selection's harsh hand. ...

"So what about teaching evolution? In the science classroom, I believe that only our empirical understanding of evolution should be taught, because that is science, and it takes some time to explain the mechanisms and timeline of evolution. I can't imagine how one could give equal time to the creationist/intelligent design alternatives since there is no objective evidence to present for those viewpoints. As for the strict Biblical creationist myth, all available evidence contradicts it. As for the intelligent design position that holds that a higher intelligence guided evolution over the long history of our planet to achieve certain results, while this admittedly could be the case, there is no direct evidence supporting that belief. So, as for either of these two alternative views, there is really nothing here to teach in a science classroom." Skeptical Inquirer, Jan/Feb '18, pp42-3.

---

Compare the "complexity" discussion above with John H. Richardson's article, "Mind Control" for WIRED magazine (Dec '17, pp124-131) which reviews 21st-century brain hacking enterprises by going "inside the race to build a brain-computer interface and outpace evolution." [Volunteers, please form a line.]

Take for example "Bryan Johnson, a 40-year-old tech entrepreneur who sold his business for $800 million and decided to pursue an insanely ambitious dream - he wants to take control of evolution and create a better human. He intends to do this by building a 'neuroprosthesis,' a device that will allow us to learn faster, remember more, 'coevolve' with artificial intelligence, unlock the secrets of telepathy, and maybe even connect into group minds. He'd also like to find a way to download skills such as martial arts, Matrix-style. And he wants to sell this invention at mass-market prices so it's not an elite product for the rich."

Then there is "the decades of animal tests to backup [Johnson's] sci-fi ambitions: Researchers have learned how to restore memories lost to brain damage, plant false memories, control the motions of animals through human thought, control appetite and aggression, induce sensations of pleasure and pain, even how to beam brain signals from one animal to another animal thousands of miles away."

Richardson mentions other "brain-hacking projects, the military research group known as DARPA already has 10 under way, and there's no doubt that China and other countries are pursuing their own. But unlike Johnson, they're not inviting reporters into any hospital rooms."

A photo caption reads: "Bryan Johnson has long been obsessed with 'reprogramming' the operating system of the world." Richardson reports that among Johnson's "biggest competitors," besides DARPA, are Braingate <www.braingate.org>, Elon Musk's Neuralink <www.goo.gl/Tgu2i4> and even Facebook. <www.goo.gl/AwNZ19>

A final thought. Imagine what the secular response would be to an inquiry regarding the aspect of complexity on evolutionary development as it applies to the growing incidence of tragedies like high school mass shootings in America.

See <www.goo.gl/po7Dpi> for more on origins and complexity in back issues of AR.

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - How Life Began: Evolution's Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz (Univ of Chicago Prs, 2008, hardcover, 296 pages) <www.goo.gl/oiPPZB>

------

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )