|
 Q:
Why do you find it impossible to believe in Evolution since you as a
physician are knowledgeable about how human life works and the numerous
similarities that exist anatomically, physiologically and genetically,
between humans and other more primitive life forms?
A:
On the contrary, I have no difficulty in
believing that each life form possesses the inherent power to change and
to adapt via natural selection. The problem I have is with evolution as
generally understood and usually taught as neo-Darwinism: the claim that
life developed solely through the laws of nature acting on chance events
with no actual design having been necessary. Once you have a life form
in place that is capable of reproduction, then change by intra-genomic
adaptation is certainly possible.
The question then
becomes: "How did that life form come into being from mere random
chemicals?" Just because organisms have similarities does not
automatically mean that they have come about without design. But beyond
this point, when one understands how easy it is for us to die, and in
doing so, lose the battle for the "survival of the fittest", it then
becomes impossible to believe in the picture of evolution that has been
painted for us by modern Darwinists. All human experience demonstrates
that the "apparent" design we see in nature is not an illusion as
neo-Darwinists would have us believe, but is real, and combined with
natural selection acting on genetic variation, represents a more
plausible explanation for how life came into being.
The parameters for
life; vital functions such as; blood pressure, temperature, respiratory
and heart rate; blood chemical levels, such as; oxygen, carbon dioxide,
sugar, sodium, potassium, and calcium; blood components, such as; red
and white blood cells, platelets, and serum proteins, ; and messenger
hormones, such as; insulin, thyroid and parathyroid hormone, cortisol,
and the pituitary and hypothalamic hormones; must stay within very
narrow ranges for our survival.
We know that most of
these parameters are monitored and controlled directly, or indirectly,
by sensors connected to specific cells, which then send specific
messages to specific target organs that receive the message by way of
specific receptors resulting in a necessary change in that parameter
being made to allow for our survival. Medical science knows that if any
one component of any of one of these systems is absent or dysfunctional,
the result is the loss of control of that parameter and usually death.
This is one of the basic tenets of modern Medicine.
Blood pressure or
temperature or respiratory or heart rate: too high or too low: DEATH.
Blood sugar, or
sodium, or potassium, or calcium level: too high or too low: DEATH.
Red or white blood
cells, or platelets or proteins: too high or too low: DEATH.
Insulin, cortisol, or
thyroid or parathyroid hormone levels: too high or too low: DEATH.
I think you get the
picture: it's not very pretty.
The information to
produce each of the three components of any one of these systems ie.
the specific sensor, the capacity for the cell to send a specific
message, and the ability for the target organ to receive that message by
way of a specific receptor, is encoded in our DNA. Theorizing on how our
DNA obtained the ability to produce a given biomolecule, such as
hemoglobin or insulin, does not take into account the need for the
presence of the other components (the sensor and receptor) to make the
system work, and the inherent ability for each system to control a
particular parameter resulting in survival capacity, and therefore, in
itself is not sufficient to explain the development of life. For the
mere existence of parts should not assume a system of function, and the
mere existence of a functioning system should not assume adequate
capacity for survival.
So given what we know
about life, and more importantly, what we know about death, how can
neo-Darwinism be considered sufficient to explain the emergence of what
we know to be such biological complexity and diversity? It certainly
cannot have come about "one step at a time" as Charles Darwin had
surmised, because we know that absent any one component of any of these
vital metabolic processes, death is the result, which would preclude
reproduction and the passing on of that life form's genetic material.
Some evolutionary
biologists seem to still be stuck in the glory days of Darwinism, when
the biomolecular understanding of life was unknown and all they had to
go on was the gross anatomy, and what light microscopy afforded, of
skeletons, fossils, and embryos.
But modern Darwinists
now seem to have latched on to the idea of "indirect Darwinian
pathways"; presuming that each of the above-mentioned necessary
components pre-existed in a primordial life form which provided; either
the same function but accomplished differently, a different function, or
no function at all. It is then supposed that all of these disparate,
but necessary parts for each of these vital systems, came together
serendipitously over hundreds of millions of years eventually resulting
in the irreducibly complex biomolecular machinery that we know is
necessary to keep us alive.
Some call this modern
evolutionary biology. I call it science fiction. The "just so" story
to end all "just so" stories. Talk about faith!! For even if each of
the above-mentioned biomolecular systems somehow came into existence in
this highly improbable way, one is still obligated to explain how each
system has the capacity for survival by inherently being able to
maintain these vital signs and blood levels in the proper ranges.
The public has given
evolutionary biologists a large promissory note to the amount that is
unprecedented in the history of Science. I'm not talking about $$$
here. I'm talking about a debt to humanity that runs soul deep: the
responsibility of all scientists, from all disciplines, to point out to
the citizens of the world the unanswered questions that remain and that
may weaken a given scientific theory. I have provided here what
represents to me some serious flaws in neo-Darwinism. When I've
received adequate answers to my questions, then we'll start on the
neuromuscular system.
* Dr. Glicksman is
a practicing physician whose insights have been preserved on this
website's "Blue Ribbon Science" menu. His resume and photo can be seen
there. |
