For a long time, biologists have been confused at the continued existence of males. Given that males do not themselves reproduce it is a wasteful drain on the species to produce them in 50% of the population. It would be much more sensible "in evolutionary terms to have an all-female asexual population which creates daughters who can reproduce rather than sons who cannot, such as the Mexican Whiptail Lizard."
So in as much as males do exist and evolution has not selected us out the assumption is that there must be a good reason for it. Why this same reasoning doesn't apply to that Mexican Lizard is not mentioned. The entire edifice of Darwinian theory rests on the assumption that there are limited resources that all species are in a perpetual death struggle to procure. The ones with the benefit of a useful, random mutation (though mutations are almost always non-beneficial) will be incrementally better at accessing those resources - thus thriving and passing on that beneficial trait to their progeny.
There are questions to be asked regarding these assumptions:
- Why do species "care" about survival in the first place? Why couldn't "nature" have randomly started with a death wish or with no motivation of any sort?
- Why has evolution selected celibacy, voluntary army service, abortion and other practices that limit the population (the supposed motivating drive of all species)?
- Where did the information come from for the radically different designs of males and females - can the steps be explained?
- What process generated the information that allows males and females to "work" together to reproduce?
- Is it presumable that the reproductive system would have to work perfectly from the beginning? What accounts for this perfection? If it developed over time, how did reproduction occur at earlier stages?
There is another way of looking at all of this - that males and females were created by a conscious designer - one who was aware of all of the benefits (including biological, sociological, spiritual) of having more than one gender. This conscious agent would also be capable of executing on the design from the get go so that no risky "random" mutating would be responsible for generating the staggering amount of specified functional information that is required for even the simplest organism to live and reproduce.
"What is man that you should remember him and the son of mortal man that you should be mindful of him? Yet you have made him but slightly less than the angels and crowned him with soul and splendor."
Tehillim (Psalm) 8:5-6
Dear Rabbi - some of your questions about evolution are discussed in the scientific literature. All evidence points to evolution and not to a G-d designer. The argument from design is a very weak argument.
ReplyDelete"All evidence?" That's a tad over-stated don't you think? Here are some thinkers who disagree that the Darwinian model is so sound: Thomas Nagel, David Berkinski, Steven Meyer, David Stove. Have you read their work? Here are several hundred others who question it: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/.
DeleteWhy do you feel the design argument is so weak?
Rabbi Jacob, with all due respect, my take away from the answers that you would give to the questions you pose are as follows: (please correct me if I am wrong)
ReplyDelete1. Why do species "care" about survival in the first place? BECAUSE GOD WANTS IT TO BE SO!
2. Why has evolution selected celibacy, voluntary army service, abortion and other practices that limit the population (the supposed motivating drive of all species)? BECAUSE GOD WANTS IT TO BE SO!
Where did the information come from for the radically different designs of males and females - can the steps be explained? GOD PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION!
What process generated the information that allows males and females to "work" together to reproduce? GOD GENERATED THIS INFORMATION!
Is it presumable that the reproductive system would have to work perfectly from the beginning? YES, BECAUSE GOD DESIGNED IT SO!
What accounts for this perfection? GOD!
If it developed over time, how did reproduction occur at earlier stages? NO, NO. GOD DID IT!
Dear Rabbi Jacob's, do these answers satisfy you in the least bit? As a rational thinker, to say "God did it", or its more disingenuous equivalent, "There is an intelligent designer", is a cop out. It does not explain things at all.
It may not explain the mechanism by which it occurred but it tells us something absolutely critical about the nature of reality - namely, that a conscious intelligence was required to make it happen. Darwin's conception of variation (later mutation) and selection was brilliant but happens to be false. That process cannot create immense volume of specified functional information that is required for speciation. Perhaps some other, unknown, process did, but there is no good reason to oppose the design conclusion when science has not provided a sufficient explanation or answered many of the tough questions.
DeleteAnd btw, I believe that God does pretty much everything - large and small.
Here are some answers:
ReplyDeleteWhy do species "care" about survival in the first place?
They don't! Those who are better adapted to their environment survive. Those who don't, die! Think of bacteria invading a human to cause disease. Those bacteria who can withstand the effects of an antibiotic that a person takes, survive. Those bacteria who have not adapted to the antiobiotic, die.
Why couldn't "nature" have randomly started with a death wish or with no motivation of any sort?
What do you mean? If by 'nature' you mean organisms - if they had a 'death wish', they would die and we would not hear from them any more!
Why has evolution selected celibacy, voluntary army service, abortion and other practices that limit the population (the supposed motivating drive of all species)?
I do not know that evolution has 'selected' these practices. Take, for example, a society that tolerates abortions, and one that does not. Take, for example a fundementalist Muslim society versus, say, Sweden. Since the former encourages high birth rates and frowns upon abortion, the rate of population increase is higher in Muslim society, as we observe currently. Is this not common sense?
Where did the information come from for the radically different designs of males and females - can the steps be explained?
I am not sure about this answer to this question. I invite you to read evolutionary biology literature in which these issues are discussed intensely.
What process generated the information that allows males and females to "work" together to reproduce?
Again, you are asking questions that are near and dear to evolutionary biologists. It is not that they are not interested in these questions. They don't shy away from them. They may not have sufficiently granular answers to your liking, but they can do better than 'God did it!', as you are doing.
Is it presumable that the reproductive system would have to work perfectly from the beginning?
Who said that they work 'perfectly'! If reproductive systems worked so perfectly, Ob-Gyn's and reproductive specialists would not be making such comfortable livings!
What accounts for this perfection?
Perfection? Really? Have you visited hospitals lately?
If it developed over time, how did reproduction occur at earlier stages?
Rabbi, with all due respect, you should read some textbooks on evolutionary biology. They go into good detail on this!
So, I've actually spent the last 4 or so years reading many books on this topic and I have not seen many satisfying answers to these questions. I see a lot of assumptions and "just so" arguments that are not particularly different than "God did it!" Only now it's just "evolution did it!" Evolution is invoked to explain almost anything - from why love exists to why people dance, etc. I find it very unconvincing.
DeleteDarwin's whole model is predicated on the desire of species to reproduce and their need to compete for resources. That's axiomatic. Yet we see many examples of behaviors (at least in humans) that fly in the face of that - like celibacy, etc. That should surprise us as the Darwinian model would assume it never to occur.
If the natural selection selects the "fittest" of all species why is it that the poor and less (less fit) educated tend to have more children and some of the most educated (priests for example) don't reproduce at all? Why is obesity(detrimental to survival) growing to epidemic proportions? Does evolution only work sometimes, with some species? Perhaps the model is flawed.
Have you seen this list of (1000) scientists who question the validity of the Darwinian model? http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
So, I've actually spent the last 4 or so years reading many books on this topic and I have not seen many satisfying answers to these questions. I see a lot of assumptions and "just so" arguments that are not particularly different than "God did it!" Only now it's just "evolution did it!" Evolution is invoked to explain almost anything - from why love exists to why people dance, etc. I find it very unconvincing.
DeleteDarwin's whole model is predicated on the desire of species to reproduce and their need to compete for resources. That's axiomatic. Yet we see many examples of behaviors (at least in humans) that fly in the face of that - like celibacy, etc. That should surprise us as the Darwinian model would assume it never to occur.
If the natural selection selects the "fittest" of all species why is it that the poor and less (less fit) educated tend to have more children and some of the most educated (priests for example) don't reproduce at all? Why is obesity(detrimental to survival) growing to epidemic proportions? Does evolution only work sometimes, with some species? Perhaps the model is flawed.
Have you seen this list of (1000) scientists who question the validity of the Darwinian model? http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/