Q&A: Question Regarding Evolution
Question Regarding Evolution
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The Rabbi uses in the notebook on the physico-theological proof Gould's example of the drunk and the wall, and the example of software that randomly writes a meaningful sentence, and rightly attacks them on the grounds that the regularity itself needs an explanation. But natural selection is not really similar to those examples. The rule that whoever reproduces more / dies less will survive more than whoever reproduces less / dies more seems like a logical law. Isn't it a law such that one cannot even conceive of a world in which it does not hold?
Answer
Indeed. And as I recall, I explained there that natural selection is a logical law and is certainly true. But without genetics / heredity, and without the laws of physics and chemistry and biology (and without the constant formation of mutations), none of this would happen. Run processes of natural selection on virtual creatures (what are called cellular automata; see Wikipedia), and you will never get living creatures, nor even creatures that do not revert from complexity back to simplicity. This is contrary to the common demagoguery of the neo-Darwinians, who thereby deny the uniqueness of life.
The component of natural selection in evolution is indeed purely logical, but without the scientific framework around it, it would not lead to the emergence of life.
It should be added that natural selection selects, but does not create. Once you have a creature without the ability to see that suddenly develops the ability to see, then obviously natural selection will prefer the new ability and act on it. But in order for the ability of sight to arise, a large number of mutations in a specific order is required. If we assume that only about 100 new mutations are needed for minimal vision, then you get no benefit at any intermediate stage on the way to the complete system, and natural selection will never be able to develop eyes (unless one believes in an astronomical jump of 100 simultaneous mutations in a specific order). This is the essence of the debate between intelligent design scientists and evolution scientists.