Wonders Of Life

Watching the latest instalment of Prof Brian Cox's wonders of Life, I thought I was going to get an explanation of evolution that would make sense. After explaining the usual stuff about genetic mutations (and adding the interesting information that it might be sub atomic particles that can have an effect), he went on to say that didn't explain it fully.

I pricked my ears. I sat forward, I was intent. He said that mere chance mutation couldn't explain the hippo in the river in front of him. It was too complex and the chance mutations required were mathematically hugely, defyingly unlikely.

I agree, so what was the explanation? Er, natural selection. That if a mutation lends an advantage, then it will stay and be 'more likely' to be passed on as a useful mutation made that animal better adapted than its peers. Which still kinda takes us back to randomness, its extreme unlikelihood and only 65 million years to get it all done in.

Why did the 'others', the less well adapted die out? Surely the weren't incapable, just not as 'good'. so, really fast cheetahs, and some a bit slower. Doesn't seem to happen though. Animals adapt to their surroundings, but not to competition from their own species. But, everywhere we look there is conformity in species.

The Aye Aye has a spooky long finger that has a ball joint which makes getting the grubs out of trees easier. And how did it get along waiting for the finger change to happen? If it got along fine eating other stuff, why are there no Aye Aye's that don't have the long finger and eat something else? Why can only what we deem as the successful survive? Not thrive, just survive.

Ah, we seemed to skip that bit. Again. To me it is clear there are changes, but I think that to be as specifically useful as they are and to occur as relatively quickly as they must have, I think there is a feedback mechanism. When the Aye Aye spends its life wishing it hand a longer finger, I think its offspring and future generations supply the answer. It feeds back, somehow, into it's own genetic make-up, that a longer finger would be really useful.

Oh and there can be more than just the Theory of Evolution and Creationism you know. It is interesting isn't it, that Darwinists seek to mock any opposition to their 'facts' (that have no empirical basis)? Why the current trend to be frightened of a pet theory being challenged? It used to be what science was about.