Charles Darwin is widely recognized as a great scientist. In the world of science, this man is untouchable. So if anyone says that Darwinian Evolution is a flawed idea, many people will assume that the one criticizing this theory is either an ignorant or a religious fanatic. But if we make an educated analysis of the evidence and the premises proposed, what will we then find? As you will see, Darwinian Evolution is a case of the Emperor’s new clothes.
The basic premise of biological evolution is Charles Darwin’s proposal of common ancestry for all species. Darwinian Evolution also credits the natural selection of advantageous traits for the development of new species from those common ancestors. So let us analyze this proposition.
The full title of Darwin’s book is ”On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”. The title does a very good job of describing Darwin’s assumption, which is that natural selection is the key to the origin of new species. The problem is that natural selection does not determine the origin of any new species. It just selects for survival from what is already in existence, in essence, the end result of the process. Therefore, this is a misleading interpretation of the real question; what is the source, the cause, or the motive for any new species? Without genetics, there are no species. So, there is a problem of semantics here.
In reality, new species are produced through a mechanism of heredity (genetics) that modifies characteristics to be inherited. Natural selection is an external factor that just filters the best physical characteristics created by this mechanism of heredity (an internal factor). So without this first factor (genetics), the second one (natural selection) is irrelevant. According to modern science, the key is genetic sequence variations. Not until the 20th Century were genetics and mutations discovered. Had Darwin known about mutations, would the title of his book then have been “On the origin of species by means of mutations, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life”?
In addition, there is more to survival than simply a process of natural selection upon a beneficial mutation. A diverse number of important factors determine who lives and who dies; such as environmental factors, an organism’s behavior, survival strategies, sheer luck, individual circumstances, teamwork, and symbiotic relationships between organisms and species. Some organisms and species only survive because of their dependence on some other species. So if any species disappears, most likely others will follow. Keystone species are an example of these relationships. Plants using insects for pollination is an example, where the lack of insects will negatively affect the plants. All the factors listed can neutralize and/or overcome natural selection, but also allow less capable organisms to survive and reproduce.
Natural selection can even work against the recipient of an advantageous adaptation. For instance, in some species, the dominant male (or female) in the herd is the only one allowed to breed in a case of natural selection. So if one of the non-dominant animals (most of them) acquires the advantageous characteristic, he/she will not be able to breed and pass this on to the next generation. So what then? it is an oversimplification to single out one factor above all others. Natural selection has an important role in the natural world, no question here, but is it enough to determine or influence the creation of a new species?
Human beings are a good example that the most adapted and best-fit organism not necessarily is the only one that survives. We have no hair coat or any other adaptation for winter, but we even live in the Arctic. We are definitely weaker and less fit than most species on this planet. But not only have we survived, we are thriving! We are the ones driving to extinction of exquisitely adapted species.
Charles Darwin did not know about genetics, mutations, or meiosis. He believed in Lamarckism, which was the accepted idea at the time that an organism passes on to its offspring characteristics acquired through the increased use or disuse of a part or an organ during its lifetime. This theory has been discredited through August Weismann’s experiments and others.
In 1868, Darwin proposed his own mechanism of heredity. He called this mechanism Pangenesis and it is a complement to his 1859 theory of natural selection. The Pangenesis Theory consists in that the body’s cells release particles that collect in the primary reproductive organs and become characteristics transferred to the offspring. Experiments by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, and by Weismann discredited this theory too.
In short, Darwin said that natural selection was the origin of new species, although, in reality, it is DNA sequence variations that determine which species an organism belongs to. Since Darwin did not know about genetics, he assumed that the discredited theories of Pangenesis and Lamarckism were the mechanisms for heredity. He also emphasized the natural selection of beneficial traits as the sole determinant for survival, over many other influential variables that also determine survival. Finally, Darwin in The Origin of Species (third edition and later, page 8) mentions that the idea of descent with modification (common ancestry of species) was proposed by Belgian geologist d’Omalius d’Halloy in 1831, so that is not even his own original idea. Interestingly, d’Omalius did not believe that natural selection was capable of creating new species.
When I was researching this article, I noticed that Charles Darwin was lavishly praised everywhere as a genius, legendary, revolutionary, brilliant, the greatest scientific mind with groundbreaking work, the theory that changed the world, etc. He is a rock star. But that did not happen when I researched Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. I also tried with Isaac Newton, and not even he got so much praise. In my research, I also found that much information associated genetics with Darwinian Evolution. I found that to be misleading considering that Darwin believed that Lamarckism and Pangenesis were how traits are passed on to the offspring, not genetics. Had I not known better, I would have assumed that credit was being assigned to Darwin, and not Mendel, for genetics.
Today, Darwinian Evolution is said to be outdated. But it is not just outdated, it was wrong from day one. Darwin made some good observations. It seems conceivable that varieties from one species could eventually become separate species. But describing him as one great scientist for that is extreme. Empirical evidence by observation alone was not enough for Charles Darwin to correctly understand how organic life developed over time. The scientific method requires testing and experimentation, although it was not done with this theory. Why Gregor Mendel is not praised like Darwin is? After all, he is the father of modern genetics, and his experiments with the peas were groundbreaking. And genetics is what determines speciation. I think that Darwin’s claim to fame is he offered an alternative to the only other option at the time for the existence of the natural world; a creator God!
I do not have a problem with Charles Darwin. He simply was a man of his time. A time of darkness. Science at that time was trying to figure out how the natural world functions. But there was much ignorance, incorrect ideas, and confusion then. When the correct information was provided by Gregor Mendel in 1866, it was totally ignored; so much so that it had to be rediscovered in 1900. I have a problem with that. Some people have perpetuated those 19th Century beliefs to this day. The absence of critical thinking about this subject is obvious. They wanted an alternative to the Genesis account of creation, any explanation. So they pushed and glorified, and still glorify that explanation, no matter how obsolete it might be. Thus in the Information Age, many still believe in magical ideas regarding organic life.
If we compare Darwin’s achievements with many other scientists, like Isaac Newton for instance, the differences are immense. Newton was a mathematician, a physicist, an author, an astronomer, a theologian, etc. He discovered among other things calculus, the 3 laws of motion, the law of universal gravitation, reflective lenses for telescopes, the color spectrum, etc. But Darwin is the one being glorified. This is a case of the Emperor’s new clothes.
The Emperor’s New Clothes is a tale about two weavers (evolutionists) who promise an emperor a new suit of magic clothes that they say is invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The clothes, in reality, do not exist, but the Emperor, along with all the people around him, does not want to admit that he cannot see them, since he does not want to seem stupid. It finally takes an innocent child to shout that the Emperor has no clothes to break the delusion. Just like Darwinian Evolution is a delusion and some stubborn scientists are the weavers.
So what is the harm in Darwin’s mistaken ideas? Adolf Hitler to my knowledge never mentioned the Theory of Evolution. Although, many beliefs about Evolution were widespread in the Western World then. However, those ideas are present in the Nazi beliefs about a Master Race. Superior racial hereditary characteristics, racial struggle (survival of the fittest),
the belief that every race shares the same inherited genetic traits, etc. The consequence of the German people believing themselves to belong to the Aryan Race is over fifty million dead in WWII. In 1940, there was a moment when the survival of civilization was in doubt. The Japanese also believed to belong to a special race, better than anyone else in Asia. But in the end, Japan and Germany were destroyed entirely; so much for survival of the fittest! And the head loser, Adolf, had to shoot himself, a hollow, defeated, a broken man according to witnesses. If nothing else, to me, that is enough harmful results for believing in lies.