The Credibility of Evolutionary Theories in Recent Years

Digital evolution

In what follows, a mid-term review: we seek an answer to the question: how credible is the theory of evolution today from a scientific point of view?

This will be a necessity for many people to ask after the contrast between the arguments pro and con. The first fact could give the impression that the theory of evolution is now an established fact, while the second indicated that the facts point precisely in the other direction: experimentally confirmed. Darwin himself observes: "I realize only too well that hardly a single point discussed in this book, which no facts can be adduced that often lead to seemingly opposite conclusions than mine." It is so obvious that one the question arises: what do you think of it now and what is not? How far reaches true science and where does fantasy begin?

It is evident, a surprising paradox that 150 years of scientific research has not led to radical confirm or disprove Darwin's theory. This continuing and even growing contradiction of strong arguments for and against can easily lead to partially ignore the scientific findings and take a unilateral position. That is what many do, while often driven by ideological motives. But, as often happens, the truth appears to lie somewhere in the middle.

Below very briefly the contrasting explanations:

1. The theory of evolution, we have overlooked how Darwin's natural selection saw a positive creative force that would be able to count on accidental changes into something new. This was then added to the modern neo-Darwinism which the accidental changes originate in random copying errors of DNA. The huge similarities between species, the sequence of fossils in strata, the experimental nature of artificial selection, and the alleged imperfections in nature count as important arguments.

2. In the unruly facts revealed how the fossils just shows the immutability of species, or changes always abruptly seem to happen. It also appears the mechanism of chance and natural selection is too slow to explain the origin of the diversity on Earth. Although therefore the theory is doctored - not least in the 'balance' - we are left with huge puzzles, such as the surprising originality of proteins and the irreducible complexity of the living cell, which defies the wildest imagination.

However, it is possible to reconcile these paradoxical findings with each other by distinguishing in evolutionary theory part two theories that answer a different question. The first part theory answers the question: "WHAT happened historically," while the second part theory answers a different question: "HOW did that happen? What is the driving mechanism behind this evolution? "

This distinction is - as we shall see - is of huge importance but is rarely made it in the public debate. Even Darwin in his book "The Origin" made little distinction between the two partial theories: he integrates them. That the concept of historical evolution (first part theory) general entrance took place, just has to do with the fact that Darwin invented an explanatory mechanism, namely: natural selection (second part theory). For many, both part theories seem therefore inseparable but this is not necessary. We may have evolved but not necessarily as an accumulation of random copying errors in DNA. For ideologues but is it logical to not make this distinction: one thinks in black and white, night and day etc.

Therefore, one should ask the question, did we really evolve in the manner Darwin likes us to believe?