The chicken is the medium used by an egg to procreate.
Charles Darwin, the Newton of biology.
Darwin was strongly impressed by Newton's scientific models: general laws that apply to a
whole range of phenomenons. Darwin strived for the same in his evolution theory.
Before Darwin, everyone believed that nature was created by God. Darwin proved that there are strictly mechanical principles that cause nature's phenomenons.
Americans and creationism.
More than half of the Americans, along with almost the entire Muslim community, refuse to
accept Darwin's theories. More than 40% of all Americans is neither a creationist or a pure
Darwinist, but interpret Darwin's ideas the way it pleases them. Maximum one out of ten
Americans know what exactly Darwin's evolution-theory stands for...
The theory.
It's a myth that Darwin's theory states that man descended from ape.
Man and ape have a common ancestor: about six million years ago, there was an African
creature that lead to man (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo
Sapiens)on the one hand, and to ape on the other.
It's a myth that 'survival of the fittest' == 'the right of the strongest'.
William Hamilton introduced the concept of 'inclusive fitness': it proves that animals and
other organisms do NOT conduct certain actions to protect the survival of their species.
Darwin already knew that this isn't correct: such behaviour will be mercilessly punished by
nature. Natural selection only preserves those 'features' that exist in function of the
organism itself: organisms who are best adapted to their environment, have the best chances
to procreate.
The origin of life.
All living creatures have exactly the same building blocks: the same DNA dinosaurs had
million years ago can be found in human beings, in elephants, in flies,...
This fact indicates that all living creatures evolved from one single DNA-molecule some 3.5
billion years ago. This DNA-molecule has been the key to life for every organism, with the
exception of some virii and a couple bacterial organisms who use an analogue RNA-molecule.
Human beings - the end of evolution?
There are no reasons to assume that man has reached his evolutional end. There are no
reasons to assume that we will EVER reach our evolutional end. Actually, the term 'end' is
meaningless from an evolutional point of view. Nobody knows HOW we're going to evolve, but it is certain that we WILL evolve. From an anatomical or fysiological point of view, man
isn't optimally adapted to his environment.
An example: we still have a blind spot in each eye: our optic nerve is on a spot where light may fall in. Since this 'weakness' is no direct threat for our survival, nature doesn't intervene. If we would have lived in an environment where this blind spot was a direct threat to our safety, nature would've eliminated that 'weakness'.
A hawk has extremely sharp eyes. Natural selection will take care of the prey-animals and
'provide' them with features to escape from the hawk's sharp eyes. Natural selection will
then again take care of the hawk's eyes, thus creating an eternal armament race where
there's a stagnating relation between those animals, but the organisms always get better at
survival and procreation.
Darwin was wrong on some points.
Darwins pangenesis-theory has been proven wrong: he assumed that each cell passes features through semen and germ-cells. We know today that it are only the sexe-cells who are responsible for passing genetical information.
Darwin assumed that organisms procreate. Nowadays, genetic researchers say that it's the
genetical material that procreates. Our 'egoistical' genes use their host to do such, not
the other way around. Therefore: The chicken is the medium used by an egg to procreate. A
sally, but true.
Darwin and God.
Darwin knew he'd piss off a lot of people, because his theories didn't fit in the
theological nature-model of his age.
The classical example he used was this one:
Parasyte wasps lay their eggs in living caterpillar. When the eggs hatch out, the larves
start eating the caterpillar from the inside, leaving the vital organs as last to have fresh
meat as long as possible. A cruel phenomenon, but the way nature works. According to
Darwin, there couldn't be a God responsible for this, unless he is a sadist.
It would be best to assume that nature is a-moral (although that term shouldn't be used
since natural selection is not an organism, but a 'blind' mechanism without evil
intentions). Nature doesn't care about ethics.
Modern evolution-biologist George Williams takes this one step further and considers nature as hostile. His conclusion is that man should fight against all unfavourable conditions. Since we don't know how to control the HIV-virus yet, there still is a long way to go: natural selection makes virii and bacteria able to find ways around our medication. Therefore, we don't have another choice than to fight against this selection and try to control nature as much as possible.
My own theory...
That doesn't mean man is the 'victim' of his own genetical cells. A paradoxal situation:
the more we are programmed, the more flexible we are. Men is 'programmed'to flexibility,
thanks to the enormous variation of programs... That's why nowadays, most scientists
believe that the influence of our genes is overrated. Our genes make us free individuals
who are able to act against the procreation of our genes. We can choose not to procreate
and change our own genetical material. We need our genes for every move we make, because they steer our moves through complicated programs.
But they are not a limitation: they just offer us the possibility to act as human beings.
As for our procreation: according to some biologists, we strive for maximal spread of our genetic material. I don't agree with this: I think our species strives more for quality than for quantity...although some AO-members seem to prove the contrary ;)
Edit: typo
