The Imperfection of Evolution

There is a common misconception that evolution continually seeks highly refined and optimized biological structures and organisms. Evolution, through natural selection, is limited to the materials provided by self-organization, which is imperfect, rather ad hoc, and the result of highly variable processes. When organisms compete for limited resources, the organisms that are best suited to the local environment tend to be more successful in a survival and reproductive sense. Characteristics of organisms are endowed through mutations caused by various anomalies and permutations that are the result of sexual reproduction. These mutations and permutations are not directed in the sense that one would often think. The laws of physics and biological processes place limits on phenotype and genotype changes but there is no master plan or foresight.

Unable to find adequate resources, the organisms that are less suited to the environment are often pushed out of the local environment, marginalized, or driven to extinction. This is the result of limited supply of materials necessary to sustain life.

It is very possible that there are numerous other possible biological designs that would be much more efficient and better suited to any given environmental niche. However, the mutations and permutations provide a limited number of often much less efficacious forms. In the rather random walk of slowly accumulating small changes, evolution is provided with a relatively limited number of designs to test. 

With some careful analyses of the environment, consideration of biological possibilities, and thoughtful design organisms could probably be developed that would out-compete the most successful organisms found on earth during any period. This is not to say that life forms are not elegant, adaptive, and robust. Because of the continual pressures from the environment only durable and successfully reproducible structures have survived. However, all organisms have only had to compete against other organisms designed by the same imperfect, ad hoc, organic mechanisms. Pitted against a carefully designed foe, most organisms would succumb.
 

The idea that evolution is backward looking, meaning it only acts on the last generation’s designs, is evident in mass extinction events. Things that are adaptive in current environments are often maladaptive to new environments caused by things such as severe atmospheric or marine environment changes. Some nutrient demanding body forms that survived and thrived in the relative lushness of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous perished quickly in the dearth that followed the K-T boundary impact event. Small organisms, particularly mammals that had inhabited a very narrow niche before the K-T impact were able to survive because of fewer nutritive demands. Mammals were then able to gradually expand into some of the niches left open by the newly extinct species. 

Through large extinction events and the ever present background extinctions, natural selection has sifted through the available options for roughly 1.5 billion years for eukaryotic organisms. The sifting was present for almost 3 billion years prior to that albeit with much more rudimentary cells and various building blocks. The farther back one goes the sketchier the actual structures become. We will probably never know exactly how life evolved from amino acids, lipids, etc. to first prokaryotes and then eukaryotes. However, science is uncovering general patterns such as the self-organization of lipid vesicles. Such discoveries continue to point to the laws of physics as the guidance provided for evolutionary processes.

Connecting the dots

The world consists of many dots that when connected can reveal meaningful patterns based in reality. There are also many times when people connect the dots in ways that seem meaningful but are actually fictions. Similar to finding patterns in clouds we place order and meaning onto things that are unconnected, truly amorphous, or random. In such instances we are connecting, or in other words correlating, things that are not connected in any way other than within our own minds. From this arises the saying, "correlation does not imply causation."

For instance we pray and what we pray for comes true. Because these two events happen in close proximity in time one may conclude that the prayer caused the desired event. However, there are many other explanations for why the desired event may have happened. If there is no connection and a person determines incorrectly that there is they are exhibiting an example of superstitious learning. He or she has falsely concluded that some action taken caused something that was really just a coincidence.  

In other instances things may meaningfully happen together but we make an incorrect assumption about the causal relationship. A for instance could be the tides and the location of the moon. Someone could come to the faulty conclusion that the more subdued light from the moon causes the tides rather than the moon's gravity which we cannot detect.

This would all seem to be very obvious to those schooled in logic, statistical analysis, and the experimental method. However, it is very common to encounter arguments that commit the fallacy of “cum/post hoc ergo propter hoc” or roughly translated “with/after this therefore because of this.” For instance, I recently encountered an argument that vaccines do indeed cause autism. The rationale given was the fact that this parent’s child had been diagnosed with autism shortly after receiving a vaccine. There is a possibility that vaccines are in some way causative to certain cases of autism. However, the argument provided does not support that assertion. Just because the two events were in close proximity does not support the claim. There is also the problem that it is basically a “study” with only one participant specifically that one child. 

There are often very good arguments for many opposing positions. Arguments are often based on constructed based on the unknowns and unknowables. It is also common for those in the debate to overlook the solid arguments and grasp the fallacious defenses that actually weaken the position.

Your beliefs are crazy but mine make perfect sense

Two of my colleagues were discussing early Mormonism, the golden plates, and how they magically disappeared. I cannot agree more with the problems of claiming there were golden plates. However, their exchange made me chuckle because of their beliefs.
 
These two people can see the problems in Mormon claims but are utterly blind to their own. Both are very religious and one does not believe the scientific communities claims on several issues. They cannot see the problems with the ten commandments being carved in stone by the finger of god, the universal deluge, manna from heaven, parting the Red Sea, stopping the waters of the Jordan River, floating iron axe heads, killing a thousand with the jawbone of a donkey, magical strength adding hair, fire from heaven consuming the priests of Baal, water turning to blood, staffs turning into snakes, and all of the other thousands of problems that can be found throughout the Bible.
 
So Biblical literalism, or near literalism, makes sense to them even though the claims are as unbelievable as angels taking away golden plates.