This will be a brief post about some unresolved issues with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Today the slogan “Evolution is a fact” is often stated whenever any dare to voice their skepticism on the topic.  Perhaps it is indeed a fact. Or indeed perhaps it is not. There is room for “common dissent” on the subject because there is no consensus on any aspect of the theory in the scientific field, nor is there consensus on the theory overall. Many do not find the proposed evidence for evolution to be compelling. Many are accused of ignorance and/or religious motivation for doubting it, but because generalizations are not “always” true for “everyone”, there are those who doubt evolution on scientific grounds. More could be said here, but in effort to be concise and brief I’ll start with a simple definition of evolution so we can have a shared definition of what is being discussed. “Variation” (changes) is not at issue here, neither is the word “theory” (explanation of phenomena) at issue. Only “evolution”, because evolution has become a loaded term.

In short, “common descent” is what is at issue. For definition, the “evolution” discussed is the Darwinian theory that serves to fully explain the process of how biodiversity of all life occurred and occurs.

Some reasons I doubt evolution adequately explains all of biodiversity are due to the following:

1. Natural selection and mutations have limits therefore are inadequate mechanisms for producing all of biodiversity alone. Both are limited by the ability of the population to produce variation. (Natural selection is limited in preventing extinction of species and natural selection isn’t innovative. Mutations are limited by their rarity, how infrequent they’re beneficial, and how often they must reoccur, so the accounting for “arrival of the fittest” for the “survival of the fittest” to occur just doesn’t add up.)
2. “Fitness” is an ill-defined concept. (Fitness lacks any independent measure therefore it’s assessable only retrospectively. This makes fitness either illusory or makes natural selection a weak or infrequent occurring phenomenon)
3. Variations have limits. When pushed, the line becomes sterile and dies out instead of descending into new genus groups.
4. Biodiversity to the degree we see is mathematically improbable to have occurred within the timeframe allotted.
5. Human consciousness cannot evolve because it is an ontological difference between humans and animals, not a biological difference.
6. Molecular biology fails to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life”.
7. Long history of inaccurate predictions regarding vestigial organs (a.k.a. “junk” DNA). Continually we are learning purposes of many organs we formerly labeled useless.
8. Irreducibly complex structures have only been assembled in theory, but no evidence of how mutations and natural selection can viably generate the genetic information required for these structures.
9. Abrupt appearances of species in the fossil record doesn’t support Darwinian evolution.
10. Humans display many behavioral and cognitive abilities unnecessary for survival advantage.

These hardly scratch the surface of reasons for why I and others are skeptical of evolution as far as speciation, common descent, and genetic drift to new genus go, nonetheless it is a start.

Direct Link
updated on 17 November, 2016

Big Bang Speculations

This post is a response to Creationists’ default position that something once came from absolutely nothing, caused by a supernatural entity.

Please do note that the name, “Big Bang” is a bit of a misnomer, the term was coined to contrast findings with the earlier, Steady State concept of the universe as Wikipedia describes here.

This blog post begins with an explanation of the writer’s understanding of some commonly used terms and how these understandings affect my philosophy on the topic.

Even before that I must disclaim any pretenses regarding my scientific and philosophical qualifications.

I have absolutely no formal scientific or engineering education or training.

I do have decades of hands on experience with what I call “ordinary, garden variety science and engineering”. I diagnose and fix ordinary things, I modify them, I fabricate them. This requires a fair bit of critical thought processes, observing a thing’s function, it requires analysis of the devices, components and processes that cause that function.

As far as the high level and exotic scientific disciplines that I am unqualified in, I feel one does not have to be a trained, practicing scientist to accept, appreciate and respect the sciences any more than one must be a musician to appreciate music.

Philosophically, I’m only a philosophical, anti-philosophy, amateur philosopher.

I acknowledge and live with the cognitive dissonance of that statement.

On to my definitions:

“The Cosmos”, and “The Universe” I use as shorthand for “This Cosmos” and “This Universe”, our observable Universe.

This is meant to fully acknowledge the possibility that String Theory is a valid concept, there may well be other Universes governed by the same Laws of Physics that apply in This Universe, or, they may be governed by subtly or wildly different Laws of Physics.

At this point of human enlightenment, we simply have no evidence that confirms string theory.

This also acknowledges the possibility that our Universe has cyclically expanded and then contracted upon itself once or a near infinite number of times or anywhere in between.

Science knows OF Black Holes and Dark Matter, little is or currently can be known about either.
Do Black Holes have an exit, possibly into another universe where rapid ejection of accumulated matter and energy might be perceived as a Big Bang? Might this be what we consider The Big Bang?
Is Dark Matter exerting gravitational forces on this Universe from another?

So, my “Cosmos” and “Universe” encompass what is observable in this current epoch, other possible, previous epochs are currently unknowable, I expect they’ll remain unknowable.
Multi-verses, Multi-epochs, while descriptive, I find the terms unwieldy, conversationally awkward and prefer “Nature” as a simpler, all encompassing term.

“Cosmos”, “Universe”, I take as that which is observable here and now. “Now” being now and including the entirety of human scientific inquiry.
“Nature” I take to encompass all that is or ever was in all epochs and multi-verses. Please notice that this concept of Nature in no way supports the now discarded Steady State concept but the opposite concept of Nature in a constant state of violent upheaval and change.

There is not, nor is it likely there can be a 100% scientific consensus regarding the Big Bang’s origins and causes.
There certainly is a predominate consensus that the Universe is expanding from an initial starting point. Prior to that event, the characteristics of Nature are unknown, currently unknowable, and only speculative.

On;

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

Third paragraph in, Paul Shestople states;

“The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.”
This paragraph’s second sentence refutes the first. A Vacuum Fluctuation is not nothing, even a vacuum is not nothing as a space for it’s existence is implied. A singularity is certainly not nothing by any stretch of the imagination.

On;

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Scroll down to THE BIG BANG heading just below the introduction, carefully read the first two paragraphs.
Especially note the following sentence quoted from the second paragraph;
“What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.”
There is no contention in this document that something ever came from nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Discusses empirical evidence and extrapolation of the known Laws of Physics.

Nowhere is there mention of something from nothing, rather “an initial state of extreme density and temperature“, far from a state of nothing.

http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

States;

“Because current instruments don’t allow astronomers to peer back at the universe’s birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical theory and models”

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

This page posits an Eternal Universe. These folks might be onto my all encompassing “Nature” concept though I can’t be sure. They are so far over my head, my head hurts from trying to grasp their contentions.

Found at;
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1410.Lawrence_M_Krauss

“In 5 billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light, so detection will be impossible. Future civilizations will discover science and all its laws, and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about the universe……We live in a special time, the only time, where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

This concept regards what is known as an Event Horizon.
There is no way to know if Krauss’s assertion here is accurate, our part of this Universe may already be beyond an event horizon, earlier events far beyond our perception.

I will add here that it is absolutely not my intent to disparage Professor Krauss in any way at all. I feel he is absolutely brilliant, I hold him in the highest regard, the world is a finer, richer, nobler place for his presence and contributions to science and thought.

Professor Lawrence M. Krauss’s intellect is on a plane so far above my own, I can barely even begin to grasp many of the concepts he presents.
That said, here’s my take on what he means by “Nothing” at the time of the Big Bang;
Matter and energy had not ceased to exist, matter and energy had coalesced into an equilibrium, a quiescent, inert, neutralized, dormant state. In this mostly dormant state, random quantum imbalances were still quite possible, possibly inevitable. Quantum fluctuations then set off chain reactions resulting in The Big Bang.

How about the recent discovery described here;
https://astronomynow.com/2016/01/14/possibly-the-most-powerful-supernova-ever-seen/

To some advanced civilization billions of years from now when our neighborhood of the Cosmos has vanished beyond their event horizon, might they conclude ASASSN-15lh as their own Big Bang?

On

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-big.html

Big Bounce

There’s an hypothesis I can wrap my head around.
A prior and unknowable universe contracted upon itself until gravity caused compression and heat caused it to explode outward once again.
There’s no cause to assume this entire universe’s material was included in this event, there may well have been material late to the party and unable to participate.
There’s also no reason to assert any limits to the number of times such a bounce may have occurred.
This hypothesis simple and elegantly moots and eludes the entire ‘Something from Nothing’ assertions of philosophers while allowing for an eternal universe, no un-caused cause required.

So, Creationists, what’s it to be? Will you continue on about uncaused causes, an entity outside of Nature that magically wishes all of Nature into existence because ancient nomads and shepherds gazed at the night sky with naked, flawed eyes and made up myths?

Arthur C, Clark’s
Clarke’s third law

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

It’s 2016, technology has advanced significantly throughout human history, it has exploded exponentially in the last few centuries.

Will creationists, young earthers and flat earthers choose to follow 1300’s science, leaving 21^st Century science indistinguishable from Magic?