Evolutionary Boundary

On March 24, 2011, in philosophy, by Jonathan Whitcomb

With all these posts about Marfa Lights and misidentification possibilities, where is anything Biblical in The Bible and Modern Pterosaurs? I could spend time researching historical documents, searching for relevancies to the Fiery Flying Serpent of the Old Testament, but that is not my specialty: I specialize in modern eyewitness accounts of living pterosaurs and observations of flying lights that may be from their bioluminescence.

But my investigation of reports of modern pterosaurs did not condense in a vacuum, from a drive for an adventure that might be satisfied by exploring a remote tropical island in Papua New Guinea in 2004, and my recent conjecture, that Marfa Lights in a desert in Texas are flying predators, did not materialize in my imagination from a pointless drive to prove the existence of modern pterosaurs.

It began with “Evolutionary Boundary,” a mathematical simulation study that I completed in 2003. I have not yet submitted it for publication in a scientific journal, but those interested in a summary can refer to the second edition of my book Searching for Ropens [the third edition, was originally intended to be retitled “Searching for Dragons,” and intended to be published at the end of 2011, but the third and fourth editions were published in 2014 with the title Searching for Ropens and Finding God). A briefer summary seems appropriate here.

My first attempt using simple calculations to test Darwin’s Common Ancestry began around 2001 or 2002. I realized that the General Theory of Evolution (the kind of evolution involving small simple organisms evolving into large complex ones) appeared to have a major flaw: Small simple life survives better than large complex life, contradicting the popular model promoted by Darwin, at least for organisms now living. And why should all living organisms behave much differently, through countless millions of years in the past, than they do today? This really is a case for “the key to the past is the present.” Unfortunately, it appears that followers of Darwin’s philosophy do not apply that principle when it would destroy their philosophical assumptions.

Getting back to my Evolutionary Boundary research, that first series of mathematical simulations was my attempt to find out if Natural Selection could produce large complex organisms from the evolution of small simple ones. I had just begun when I realized that a simpler model could accomplish the same objective, a series of calculations involving two qualities needed for macro-evolution to occur. I set aside the first experiment (I will probably never take it up again) and started what I later titled “An Evolutionary Boundary.”

Interesting to note, at about this time, the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up on returning to earth, killing all humans aboard but leaving a container of tiny worms with those small simple organisms still alive after the crash. That concept of survivability I still believe in, without doubt, notwithstanding the possibility that some Darwinist might bring up some obscure exception. One or two exceptions does not make or break a general rule.

“An Evolutionary Boundary” involves simple math, for a biologically saturated environment is the normal condition to be expected, and the population calculations are simple. I’ll get to the point. After about six months of calculations, using computer programs I wrote myself, the original population of organisms of 10e29 (the number having “1” followed by twenty-nine zeros), after only a few generations, had only a minute fraction of viable candidates for macro-evolutionary change. But the critical point is this: Those competitive populations that did not have any macro-evolutionary potential vastly outnumbered those that did, and their competitiveness was at least equal to the “Darwinian” candidates.

It would have been pointless to have tried working on those calculations for another six months, for the “Darwinian” candidates would have dwindled to near zero by around 10-20 generations. Darwin’s philosophy of Common Ancestry may have become popular with some modern humans, but it is the antithesis of what happens with small simple organisms.

How does this relate to the Bible? Without the Creator, even a planet saturated with 10e29 organisms (an astronomical number of microorganisms) cannot produce large complex forms of life, even under ideal conditions, even after billions of years. The first few chapters of Genesis, however simple in outline, explain the origin of human life, and Darwin’s basic conjecture about that origin, from my perspective, is not only unscientific but superstitious. And Darwin’s overall philosophy of universal common ancestry now appears superstitious in the extreme: the epitome of superstition.

See also: Overview of Evolutionary Boundary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Tagged with:
 

3 Responses to “Evolutionary Boundary”

  1. […] Post on the Evolutionary Boundary “An Evolutionary Boundary” involves simple math, for a biologically saturated environment is the normal condition to be expected, and the population calculations are simple. I’ll get to the point. After about six months of calculations, using computer programs I wrote myself, the original population of organisms of 10e29 (the number having “1″ followed by twenty-nine zeros), after only a few generations, had only a minute fraction of viable candidates for macro-evolutionary change. But the critical point is this: Those competitive populations that did not have any macro-evolutionary potential vastly outnumbered those that did, and their competitiveness was at least equal to the “Darwinian” candidates. […]

  2. […] Evolutionary Boundary This simulation is with a hypothetical planet with at least the water content of the earth. Beginning with simple one-celled organisms . . . as the only life forms, simulations are made on the growths of sub-populations. These groups are characterized by several general types of non-harmful mutations. They are categorized by the general effects of those mutations. . . . […]

  3. […] pterosaurs. I also admit that I wrote another post, a few months ago, on my investigation “An Evolutionary Boundary.” But there are connections, and this deserves […]