For all living forms, I indicated that there was a different force which I referred to as the force of complexity. The areas reviewed that pertain to this force and every living thing included my views on the primordial organic soup and biology. To complete the picture of this force, there is one final area to examine and that is the theory of evolution. By completing the picture, we will have looked at how science explains all the complexity of life by answering three questions. How did this complexity first get started and create itself? The answer is the primordial organic soup. How complex are the various life forms and structures that make them up? Here, the replies are furnished by the biological and the life sciences. The third and last question is: once life first got started, how did it get so much more complicated that there are the very sophisticated life forms which exist today? The answer that science provided is referred to as the theory of evolution and which is our next topic of review.

Ever since the theories of Darwin first proposed the concept of evolution there has been great controversy over the subject. When I studied biology in senior high school there was an interesting reference that was given to us. It stated that the theory of evolution is to biology as the atomic theory is to chemistry and physics. For science, a very basic definition of evolution is that living things change. Species of plants and animals change. Some species die out and some become more predominant. Since Charles Darwin first published his book, The Origin of the Species, on November 24, 1859, more than a century has passed accounting for the existing body of data and testing the evidence against the theory of evolution. Not only does the body of data include the study of the existing species on our planet, but great effort has gone into studying the data provided by the fossil record of plants and animals. It is by charting the passage of time and linking the supporting fossil records for a given species, that over time, the changes and evolution of a species can be verified. However, there are gaps and there are problems with the completeness of this record. The trail has been cold for some time and all of the evidence cannot be found. There are unsolved puzzles.

Darwin put forward many important concepts such as natural selection. Here, Darwin felt that there was a struggle for survival and a competition among members of a species. This struggle for survival between ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ also became apparent in different rates of reproduction between them. Viewed together, the struggle and the different rates of reproduction were called natural selection by Darwin. Through natural selection, Darwin also proposed another concept called adaptation. By natural selection, a species of living things could adapt to its environment. Darwin is very famous for his journey in the H.M.S. Beagle to the Galapagos Islands. These islands are about 600 miles off the west coast of South America. It is here that Darwin accidentally discovered a living laboratory of evolution - living examples that supported the concepts of natural selection and adaptation.

The next statements which I am going to make may be surprising for some. There are major parts of the theory of evolution that I really have no problem accepting. It is very hard to totally ignore the existence of all the fossil records. It is also totally hard to ignore all the painstaking linkages that have been charted over time showing how one fossil species may have changed and evolved to another. What I do have a problem with, is the explanation for the force that is driving this change.

Strong believers of pure evolution theory, and those without a belief in religion, will likely put great stock into Darwin’s theories. They are likely to return the challenge back to me and state that I am making too big a commotion over the idea that there is a force behind all of this change. They will argue and put forth that evolution is not that elaborate and that it is a straightforward process. Instead, it is just as Darwin theorized and that species slowly evolve over time and this is based on natural selection and adaptation. The end result, after millions and millions of year, are the sophisticated living species that inhabit the Earth today.

To me, this is lulling us into a false sense of security and a false sense of acceptance of these explanations. It is all so simple and gradual that things make themselves complex? There is more to it than what can be observed and described by the theory of evolution. It is almost as though the word evolution is a trick word and is somewhat deceptive. I am going to propose a different definition, a very stark and harsh definition, for the meaning of evolution. On its own, from its first spontaneous creation in the primordial organic soup, living organisms have become more complex and continue to do so in an almost systematic and unending manner. This last sentence may be very cold and callous. Yet, is it not an accurate statement, of what some people in science, would like us to believe explains how human beings came about on this planet?

The balance of this chapter will be a series of expressed difficulties, situations and questions that I have with the concept of evolution. While it may seem contradictory that I accept ‘portions’ of evolution and the ‘fossil record’, the contradiction is due to the lack of a comprehensive enough and plausible explanation.

As you recall from science’s explanation of the primordial soup, the first micro-organisms were likely plant-like and used a type of photosynthesis to be self-sufficient in terms of food energy. While the description was extremely vague, these plant-like forms evolved into animal-like forms. These are a fundamentally different form of life that need oxygen to survive and which consume other living things to supply themselves with the complex proteins and nutrients needed to live. Think about it. These are two vastly different forms of life. They are almost like night and day. One consumes carbon dioxide and gives out oxygen, while the other consumes oxygen and gives out carbon dioxide. The first life, plants, use a form of readily available energy on the planet, light from our Sun, to create its own food and its own energy to feed the entire planet. Animals are the opposite and cannot create their own food, but must consume plants or other animals. What a neat scheme and evolution came up with this? Once we can get past this incredible accomplishment in itself, we now have the start of the two basic, and very different, types of life that populate our globe - plants and animals.

So the first life was believed to be created in the seas and oceans. Here is a fundamental question. Why did life evolve out of the sea? Did life evolve out of the oceans just because land was there? Were the seas and oceans so teaming and full of life that they could not hold it all. The land would have been totally barren, without any food, consisting of irregular and random land masses. All the land surfaces would have been devoid of life. Life in the oceans ‘decides’ this look good - "Let’s accidentally evolve and turn this into home. Let’s populate it.". What would drive life out of the vast oceans where it knows how to live? In place of these flippant comments, I should look at the situation more fairly and consider it.

Although I am by no means an expert in the details of Darwin’s theories and the intricacies of evolution, the following series of problems exists in the evolution of life from the oceans to the land. The drive for a species to become more complex does not exist on its own. There is no master plan or intelligence that is capable of making this happen. Instead, it is Darwin’s concepts such as the struggle for survival and natural selection that enable a species to adapt to its environment. Adapting from an environment within the oceans to an environment on dry land is far from being a simple accomplishment.

Take the case of early animal life which would have resided in the oceans. Early animal life in the oceans needed oxygen to survive and developed unique biological structures to accomplish this. Oxygen was removed from the water. Fishes today have complex gill structures to obtain the oxygen they require. Sharks, which as a species closely resemble their prehistoric ancestors from millions of years ago, have gills to breathe. It is not a simple matter to adapt from an environment of removing oxygen from water to an environment of removing it from air. Human lungs are miraculous in their functionality, but are suited very uniquely for one environment. There are even restrictions on that environment in terms of the altitude and the cleanliness of the air.

For the higher species of animals, coupled with the ability to breathe is the need to be highly mobile. Mobility is extremely important to gather and obtain food as well as to avoid becoming food for others. This is true in the two environments of land and water. However, the modes and methods of being mobile in the two types of surroundings is vastly different. Aquatic life is uniquely adapted for speed and agility in a fluid environment where the affects of gravity are secondary. Fishes have a major portion of their body mass devoted to the tail structure which is used for strong forward propulsion. For agility, control of direction, and stability; fishes have evolved fins that satisfy these requirements for their impressive mobility in a fluid. In contrast, life on land is focused towards a mobility where the affect of gravity and the handling of the terrain in their habitat is paramount. Being streamlined for movement in a fluid, such as air, is apparent only for the fastest of land creatures.

We addressed two significant differences: breathing and mobility. There must be other important distinctions between animals in these two environments that would be vital to their survival. One other critical function comes to mind and that is the ability to reproduce. Survival for a species will not be long term without a successful method of reproduction that is adapted for the environment. Reproductive methods for animals on land is quite different than for animals in water. While I have given it some thought, these three attributes seem to be the major drivers for survival amongst animals. In summary they are: the ability to take in oxygen, mobility to gather food and avoid becoming someone else’s food, and, the capability to reproduce effectively and promote the species. There are hundreds of other differences between animal species, but when you think of the important and central features for survival these three seem to be at the base of importance.