Evolutionary theory as a whole is speculative, as you put it in another comment. As I mentioned in another comment, my background is genetics, so here are some thoughts on evolution...
The fundamental tenet of evolutionary biology is that observing modern genetic patterns in fossil records is *not* evidence those patterns were advantageous. Neanderthalensis was better equipped than Sapiens in almost every way...except the climate warmed up, and Neanderthalensis starved as animals became lighter and faster. Many pundits use the argument today that white men are naturally superior because white men rule the world today. This is a scientific fallacy.
We scientists guess at what might have been evolutionary advantages, which leads me to evolutionary psychology. Passing down traits is not at all strictly genetic. So much of human history is characterized by behavioral patterns, not biology. We watch cultures come and go across 20000 - 50000 years of Sapiens's existence, and much of a culture's rise and fall is the result of human interaction, not random mutation.
And on that note...although Darwin described the evolutionary force as "adaptation," every change in physical structure is due to random mutation, not a natural force. If one organism manages to change randomly to a structure that might be favorable, it might persist. But more than likely, that one organism will not persist, because that organism needs to reproduce...and now behavior comes into play. Evolutionarily advantageous humans are probably born every day, but there's enough noise to drown out that signal.
So I leave you with this thought: genetics is driven by probability, and evolution is driven by environmental change convolved onto genetic probability. If a line goes extinct, Nature doesn't give a rat's ass.
Actually, one final thought... I feel (and correct me if I'm wrong) you characterize science as a whole as a collection of facts, not a process of observing the Universe as it operates. Science doesn't *demand* evidence; science observes evidence. It's only humans who demand ethical decisions on top of observation. That may sound like semantics, but it's the backbone of social constructionism...which explains so much of human behavior and human history. 💜
Evolutionary theory as a whole is speculative, as you put it in another comment. As I mentioned in another comment, my background is genetics, so here are some thoughts on evolution...
The fundamental tenet of evolutionary biology is that observing modern genetic patterns in fossil records is *not* evidence those patterns were advantageous. Neanderthalensis was better equipped than Sapiens in almost every way...except the climate warmed up, and Neanderthalensis starved as animals became lighter and faster. Many pundits use the argument today that white men are naturally superior because white men rule the world today. This is a scientific fallacy.
We scientists guess at what might have been evolutionary advantages, which leads me to evolutionary psychology. Passing down traits is not at all strictly genetic. So much of human history is characterized by behavioral patterns, not biology. We watch cultures come and go across 20000 - 50000 years of Sapiens's existence, and much of a culture's rise and fall is the result of human interaction, not random mutation.
And on that note...although Darwin described the evolutionary force as "adaptation," every change in physical structure is due to random mutation, not a natural force. If one organism manages to change randomly to a structure that might be favorable, it might persist. But more than likely, that one organism will not persist, because that organism needs to reproduce...and now behavior comes into play. Evolutionarily advantageous humans are probably born every day, but there's enough noise to drown out that signal.
So I leave you with this thought: genetics is driven by probability, and evolution is driven by environmental change convolved onto genetic probability. If a line goes extinct, Nature doesn't give a rat's ass.
Actually, one final thought... I feel (and correct me if I'm wrong) you characterize science as a whole as a collection of facts, not a process of observing the Universe as it operates. Science doesn't *demand* evidence; science observes evidence. It's only humans who demand ethical decisions on top of observation. That may sound like semantics, but it's the backbone of social constructionism...which explains so much of human behavior and human history. 💜