Conceptual Problems With the Theory of Evolution

¶ … evolution refers to the changes that occur over time in the heritable traits over consecutive biological populations due to natural selection (Ohno, 2013). Since its inception by Darwin, the theory of evolution has become the overarching and unquestionable scientific explanation for biological diversity on the planet. It has become so accepted by the scientific community that many scientists refer to evolution as a "fact" as opposed to an actual theory (see, Gould, 1983).

This type of acceptance towards evolution often leads to surprising intolerance by the scientific community when evolutionary theory is criticized. Nonetheless, there are several aspects of the theory of evolution that call its validity into question. This paper will briefly explore two of these critiques. First, nearly every conceptualization of evolution begins with the notion that life on the planet earth evolved as a result of a random forces that combined crucial elements/ingredients (Ohno, 2013).

While many accept this notion, this proposition is actually problematic for the entire theory of evolution because there is no scientific evidence that a hodgepodge of chemicals and non-living compounds can be combined in any way, shape, or form to generate something that has life (Miller, Bada, & Lazeano, 2004).

Even Stanley Miller, the architect of the famous Urey-Miller experiment where essential proteins were synthesized in laboratory conditions under what these researchers considered to be a random processes, has stated that the notion that life can spontaneously develop from a combination of non- -- living compounds is inconsistent with scientific observations (Miller, Bada, & Lazeano, 2004).

In fact, the biophysicist Harold Morowitz has estimated that the probability that all of the elements necessary to create life in a single celled animal could occur by chance is somewhere on the order of 1/10-340,000,000, which is so minute that it is a statistical impossibility (see, Morowitz, 1955). Nonetheless, in addition to experiments by Miller there have been experiments conducted under laboratory conditions that utilize computers to randomly combine chemical elements that produce chains of proteins resembling chains of RNA (see Szostak, Bartel, & Luisi, 2001).

Thus, researchers suggest that one day they will be able to create life in a test tube, so to speak. However, these experiments require the manipulation of initial conditions by experimenters and do not truly represent random processes that are believed to contribute to the beginning of life as described by evolutionary theorists.

In fact, even today if scientists were to take a living single -- celled animal, place it in a medium advantageous for survival, rupture its epithelium and thus killing it, they could not produce a living organism or any biological process from the material in the medium even though all of the necessary elements for life are there. There is little reason to believe that this could ever be accomplished. Thus, the initial assumptions of evolutionary theory are inconsistent with tenants the scientific method.

Secondly, a number of features of biological organisms appear to be inconsistent with the notion that they could be formed by natural selection. Early proponents of the "irreducibly complex" notion have been addressed by science; however, these responses are more in line of guesses or hypotheses as to how complex feature of a biological organism could develop from the process of natural selection and evolution as opposed to actual evidence based on the scientific method (see Yates, 2013).

Moreover, there still remain many features of biological organisms that are problematic for the theory of evolution. For example philosopher Thomas Nagel has repeatedly questioned the notion that complex cognitive processes could arise from an evolutionary process based on materialistic foundations even though he also denies the possibility that an intelligent designer exists (see Nagel, 2012). One of the notions that Nagel discusses is the notion of consciousness.

From an evolutionary standpoint he asks what possible reason could there be for the existence of consciousness in biological organisms? How does evolution explain the fact that there are conscious beings? Interestingly, the response to Nagel's critique of evolution has been that his argument is flawed and that science will eventually be able to explain how the complex features of biological organisms such as consciousness were derived from an evolutionary process (see, Yates, 2013).

It is interesting that the answers offered to questions like this are either totally speculative without any solid empirical foundation (hypothetically these qualities could develop from evolution) or simply attempt to claim that the argument is invalid because one day science will find the answer. In fact, in terms of their content the responses to many of the questions/critiques of evolution from the scientific community are remarkably similar to the types of responses/criticisms that.