Principles of Evolution : A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs
Principles governing the process of the evolution of a new species based upon observations of bedbugs, with the assumption being made that the explanation for the diversity found in bedbugs, and not found in other insects, is an instability which has as its cause the process of evolutionary change.
The Living Resurrection: A Manifesto
Induction is the process by which we conclude that what is true of certain individuals of a class, is true of the whole class, or that what is true at certain times will be true in similar circumstances at all times. --J. S. Mill.
A process of demonstration in which a general truth is gathered from an examination of particular cases. (Dictionary definition of the process of induction).
Photographs of Bedbugs
Bedbugs evolved from what were once insects much like mosquitos. The atrophied remains of wings can be found upon the backs of bedbugs, and bedbugs still sometimes appear with the elongated aerodynamic body shape of a flying insect. A typical bedbug has body shape that is as flat and naroow as a credit card, which is a shape which allows bedbugs to slip through even very narrow cracks.. When a bedbug appears with the body shape of the flying bug from which bedbugs evolved, the body is not flat, but rather is tubular and more rounded.
My place was infested with bedbugs, and when I first saw these long, skinny bugs I did not immediately recognize them as being bedbugs. However they had the same reddish brown color of a bedbug. When you starve a bedbug they lose their reddish tinge and become golden tawny colored bugs that are almost transparent. The same thing would happen to these elongated bugs, and it wasn't long before I realized that these odd shaped bugs were in fact bedbugs.
In this very interesting photograph from the University of Toronto you can
see on the bottom of the photograph two adult bedbugs. The bedbugs I had
in my place resembled the adult bug on the left, an almost circular oval shaped bug.
At the top of the photograph you can see pictures of bedbug nymphs, and if
you look to the bottom right, you can see one anomalously shaped, long, skinny
bedbug. This photograph mimics what I saw in my place. The majority of
the nymphs of various sizes were almost circular oval shaped bugs, while a
minority were these anomalous long skinny bugs.
In most insect species, one bug is pretty much like another. Every ant is the same. The honey bees are the same. The body of these insects is stable. The same is not true of bedbugs which display an interesting instability in the design of their body shapes. Bedbugs are unusual in this way, as the photographs below illustrate.
This photograph comes the closest to appearance of the majority of the bedbugs I had seen - an almost perfectly circular, flat, oval shaped bug.
The bedbug in this photograph from Harvard University shows the body type of a slightly less circular bedbug.
A photograph of a bedbug from Cornell University.
An interesting photograph of an unusually shaped bedbug from the University of Kentucky.
A bedbug with an almost 'triangular' shape.
The evolution of bedbugs
By combining the images above, beginning with the insect with a body type resembling that of a flying bug and working forward to the classic oval shape of the insect we know as the bedbug, we can create a composite image which illustrates the process of evolutionary change.
Every creature that exists today evolved from an earlier life form, but you would never know it by observation of the living creature. The study of the process of evolution requires the painstaking analysis of fossil remains of creatures that existed in the distant past.
We know that life evolved on earth because we have the clear evidence of this evolutionary process found in fossil beds. We do not see evolution taking place today because all existing creatures are stable. They do not change. A lady bug is a lady bug. You do not see long lady bugs and triangular lady bugs. You only see lady bugs. The same principle applies to the ants, or to the honey bees. You do not see short fat wasps, and long skinny wasps, and barrel shaped wasps, or ants with fat behinds and ants with skinny behinds. You see lady bugs, and each lady bug is a lady bug, and you see ants, and each ant is the same, as are bees and as is true of wasps.
Bedbugs are not stable. It does not seem to be a coincidence that the instability found in bedbugs can be seen to be steps in the transition between two different species of bugs, as illustrated in the photograph above. If bedbugs such as these were to be found in fossil beds or captured in amber, then the argument could easily be made that here was a clear example of the evolution of a species. However bedbugs are a living species and for this reason it might prove more difficult to make the same argument, even though the evidence is the same, for no other reason than that the evidence is alive rather than dead, and therefore is not found in fossil beds or in amber.
Principles of Evolution
1. All creatures are stable once they have reached a steady state. Evolution only occurs when something disturbs the equilibrium in such a way as to threaten a species with extinction..
Bedbugs were flying bugs which then became fixated upon biting human beings to the exclusion of all other creatures. Human beings are easier to bite. They don't have fur and feathers to get in the way. Human beings are also dangerous to bite. A bug is much less likely to be swatted while biting a bear or an antelope. If an insect wants to specialize in biting human beings then it must longer be like the mosquito, which is an insect which can still be found biting a bear or an antelope. If mosquitos are being swatted by human beings, the entire species is not in danger of extinction, because mosquitos are not specialized bugs. The insect which was to become the bedbug was in danger of extinction. If these bugs were to successfully specialize in biting only human beings they could not longer follow the strategy of mosquito, but rather it was required that they evolve, and become a new species of bug..
A reasonable hypothesis which would explain this transition we see taking place from a flying bug much like a mosquito, to the bedbug of today would be that bedbugs were created by human beings with the process being initiated around the same time that human beings began practicing agriculture and domesticating animals. When human populations increase there is a concurrent decrease in animal populations, and this would attract flying insects to human livestock and also to human beings. Now there are certain advantages to biting a human being which would then explain the fixation that bedbugs have when it comes to preferring to bite people. When an animal is bitten a lot of work is required to burrow through fur or feathers, while human beings are much easier to bite. There is a downside to biting a human being, for flying bugs will be getting swatted and squashed, this being even more likely if their bite creates a painful welt.
The safest time to bite a human being is while they are in a deep sleep. Since our ancestors lived in tents and lived nomadic lives following their herds of animals, being a flying bug was less advantageous, and it was more advantageous to be a bug which could squeeze through cracks and crevices so as to get into a tent at night. Fighting and struggling to get into a tent at night is a lot of work, and it makes more sense once in a tent to remain in a tent and to remain in hiding so as to avoid being swatted and squashed. Bedbugs have a strong affinity for all natural fibers, since these were the materials our ancestors carried with them. It makes sense for a bedbug to conceal itself within these fibers so that when our nomadic ancestors moved from spot to spot they took the bedbug with them. This was preferable to being a flying bug which would then have to search for the new location of our ancestors tents, and then go through the difficult task of finding someway to squeeze into a tent, all of which is a very energy intensive way to get a meal. Because so much energy would be burned getting a meal the flying bug would have to bite more often which would bring increased risk, while the crawling bug which then went into hiding was an energy conserving bug. Today's bedbugs only bite once every week or week and half, which minimizes their exposure and thus the risk they face and is only possible because being a crawling bug which hides within natural fibers is an energy conserving strategy.
Flying around inside a tent would be a good way to get swatted, and so we can see that flying would be behavior that is deprecated while crawling and hiding would be preferred, and while the tubular stream lined body shape is suitable for a flying bug the flattened body shape is preferable for a bug that crawls and then hides in cracks and crevices to avoid getting a good swat. Leaving welts after a bite is not a good idea for a bug which wishes to become invisible and a painful bite is not a good idea for a bug which wishes to bite at night without waking its host and running the risk of being exposed and then squashed.
All the adaptations of the bedbug can be seen to be products of a symbiotic relationship with human beings, with the bedbug being the creation of human beings (the insect becoming like clay for the hands of the human potter).
2. Biological algorithms exist, and the purpose of this software of life is to transform the physical body.
It is these algorithms which are responsible for what was once considered the activity of the 'supernatural' or what were considered 'miracles'. A certain percentage of fatal illnesses go into spontaneous remission. This is the result of the actions of biological algorithms, and not supernatural intervention.. This claim is not just speculative wishful thinking, but rather physical evidence does exist of the power of this biological software. See the following links one
3. The evolution of species is not the result of randomly occurring changes. It is a directed goal oriented process of intelligent selection, with the intelligence driving the process of change located in 'biological software'. Feedback from the environment is somehow processed by this software, and then intelligent design choices are made, which then initiates a goal oriented process of evolutionary change.
Bedbugs possess remarkable adaptions which have been specifically targeted to allow bedbugs to bite human beings and survive. They possess a type of syringe which they use to inject two special purpose chemicals : an anesthetic, so that the bite of bedbug is painless and an anticoagulant to thin the blood and make extraction easier. The crawl of a bedbug is undetectable on human skin. A bedbug has the ability to determine when a human being is in the deepest stages of REM sleep. They can do this from a distance. Of the bedbugs I experienced, only a small percentage left painful welts much like those a mosquito, and the rest of the bites were simple puncture wounds. The only symptom experienced was a delayed itching reaction which would not take place until about five or six hours after awakening. Bedbugs are insects, and as such they cannot possess advanced medical knowledge. They can never be pharmacists or nurses, and yet we see bedbugs running diagnostic medical tests, and we see bedbugs administering specific drugs designed to accomplish a specific task.
The design choice which is the end target of bedbug evolution is the wide almost circular oval shape. A bedbug is an insect which has developed a strong aversion to crawling, since crawling brings risk. These insects are invisible. You never see them. They only come out to feed, and then only for a matter of minutes. They are shy, retiring bugs. For this reason bedbugs gorge, which then allows them to do without a meal for much longer time, so that they may remain safely hidden. The wide circular oval provides the bedbug with the largest possible container, which equates to the longest possible time between feedings. It is the most intelligent design choice, and thus we see bedbug evolution moving in this direction. In the population of bedbugs I had the opportunity to study, the circular oval insect was in the majority, and given enough time we can expect the less desirable bedbug body designs to fade away, the evolutionary process will be complete, and the insect will become stable in its new circular form.
4. All living creatures remain stable and evolution of species does not occur unless equilibrium is disturbed in such a way as to threaten extinction. Evolution is a goal directed software driven process the purpose of which is to make the intelligent decisions required to prevent extinction. The process is dependant upon input from the environment which must be processed successfully if the evolutionary process is to succeed and the extinction event averted.
Dodo birds are extinct. It is impossible for a software program to arrive at a correct solution when the problem is that in a very short time a flightless bird was being gunned down in a hail of bullets.
The most credible hypothesis which explains the extinction of the dinosaurs is that a comet hit the earth. There is evidence for the impact crater in the Gulf of Mexico. As well there is a layer of iridium which marks the boundary of the extinction event in the fossil record. The source of this element would be a comet, and it is found to be dispersed globally, which is an indication of the severity of the impact. This would have raised a great cloud of dust which would have blanketed the planet, lowering temperatures. Dinosaurs became extinct because of the sudden change (evolution is a process), but mammals survived, because mammals are creatures with fur coats. (This suggests that all eggs should never be put into one basket, but rather that life should be found colonizing every possible environmental niche, so that even in the case of catastrophe, species may become extinct but life itself will not become extinct)
5. The old gives birth to the new.
Every creature which exists today emerged from a creature which no longer exists.
6. The evolutionary process begins with a single female, mediated in the womb or in the egg If this proves to be true it would suggest a special function for Mitochondrial DNA. It takes time for the evolutionary process to reach a stable state. This occurs because the evolution of a new species begins with a single female and it then takes time and generations for the change to predominate at the population level. The length of the process can be shorter if the ancestral animal is driven to extinction, which eliminates its genetic contribution.
Pesticide resistant bedbugs were present in the building I live in. I noticed the following consistent pattern. Every time pesticides were sprayed, most of the oval shaped bedbugs would die and elongated tubular shaped bedbugs would survive. This occurred in spite of the fact that oval shaped bugs were in the clear majority and elongated tubular shaped bedbugs were in the minority. This pattern kept repeating itself again and again. It was obvious that there were two separate lines of descent. Pesticide resistant females were surviving and producing offspring without resistance, which was the contribution of the father. There were significant numbers of these offspring present, and this was not the work of a single female. All the elongated bedbugs which survived spraying were at the same stage of development. A single pesticide resistant females was surviving and was producing elongated offspring with a strong resistance to pesticides (the contribution of both the mother and the father...we can draw this conclusion because breeding experiments reveal that pesticide resistance behaves like a recessive trait, and nonresistance behaves like a dominant trait so that resistance is reduced when exposed to the genes for nonresistance.)
From this observation I draw the conclusion that a newly evolving species emanates from a starting point in a population line that originates at a single point at an earlier time.
From the Wikipedia site : Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all living humans. Passed down from mothers to offsprings over more than a hundred thousand years, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans...The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottleneck or first couple. They co-existed with a large human population."
From the TalkOrigins site : "Consider the set of all women living today, then the set of all their mothers, and so on. Obviously, each set will be as small as or smaller than the previous set. Eventually the set will contain only one woman, who is known as "mitochondrial Eve". The mtDNA of all living humans is inherited from mitochondrial Eve...However, using the genetic difference to estimate the time of the last common ancestor is difficult, for a couple of reasons. One is that the rate at which mtDNA mutates is poorly measured. "
7. The old coexists with the new.
The evolutionary process begins with a loss of stability caused by a loss equilibrium. A period of instability follows , during which time the old forms coexist with the new. The evolutionary process ends with a return to equilibrium, after which the new life form becomes stable and enters into a steady state. The process is complete when the old transitional forms have disappeared.
Instability is the evidence of the active evolutionary process. Most creatures are perfectly stable, and all traces of the creature they may have once been have long since disappeared. Creatures which are evolving into a new species are unstable, and it is possible to see where they came from and where they have been, and given enough time it would also be possible to discern the final destination. This is certainly true of the bedbug, as can be seen by lining up the variant forms assumed by that insect, and noting the evidence for an evolutionary transition (a picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes).
We know from the fossil record that an extinction event is followed by an explosion of new life. Currently human beings are creating an extinction event. For this reason although what we see in the bedbug has been uncommon in the past, we should anticipate that it will become very common in the future. If a new flying creature appears, we should expect that new creature to be found in the nest of an existing bird. Given that extinction pressure is increasing, we should expect to see emerging signs of the instability which would be the defining characteristic of the evolution of species.
The 'Revolution of Life' : More discussion of the evolution of bedbugs
8. The evolution of a new species can only occur by means of the introduction of dominant genetic traits. The evolution of species does not take place slowly by means of a process of accumulating random mutations spaced out over millions of years, but rather by means of the successive introduction of desired traits in a sequence of steps. These traits must be dominant for the old species gives birth to the new, and therefore the undesirable trait found in the old species much be recessive in order for the newly introduced trait to propagate at the population level through the process of successive breeding cycles. Intermediate forms will appear during this process, but these intermediate forms are not the product of 'random mutations' spaced out over time, but are the result of genetic combinations of the older recessive trait and the newly introduced dominant trait. For this reason the term 'evolution of life' is only partially correct and it would be more accurate to refer to the 'revolution of life', since the development of a new species consists of a series of sudden insurrections and is not a random process of gradual undirected mutations. The process of natural selection does not work by weeding out undesirable random mutations but rather through the sudden introduction of genes for dominant characteristics. The evolutionary process that follows consists of successive breeding cycles whereby the dominant genes spread at the population level during a period of instability during which intermediate forms are produced. These intermediate forms are not evidence for gradual random mutation but rather are the product of genetic combinations between the older deprecated characteristics of the species and the newly introduced dominant genetic contribution of the newly emerging species.
The photograph above, produced by the University of Toronto, shows a sample of a population of bedbugs. At the bottom are two variant versions of an adult bedbug. At the top is a collection of smaller nymphs and at the bottom right you can see one anomalously shaped nymph with an elongated body shape. This photograph comes closest to capturing the state of the population of bedbugs I had present in my place and thus available for study and research. There were certain notable differences between the bugs in my place and the bugs in the photograph. The majority population of insects were almost perfectly circular in their body shape. The elongated bug in the photograph above still displays deprecated characteristics of the flying bug from which the bedbug has evolved. The elongated insect in the photograph has a flattened body and a slight oval shape, characteristic of bedbugs. The population of elongated bedbugs which were present in my dwelling place were not flat and they exhibited no trace of the oval body shape. There were rounded, tubular shaped insects which still preserved the body shape of the ancestral flying bug.. They were such unusual looking insects, that at first I did not recognize them for what they were, which was a very primitive population line of bedbugs
In the photographs above, one from the University of Kentucky, and one from Cornell University, you can see elements of both the 'tubular' elongated body shape of the flying bug as well as the 'roundness' which is a desirable 'aerodynamic' body shape for a flying bug, but which is an undesirable characteristic for a secretive crawling insect such as the bedbug.
The fact that a population line of such primitive versions of the bedbug had somehow survived to the present time while still preserving intact so many deprecated characteristics of the ancestral flying bug i found to be quite remarkable. This is an indication of just how recently bedbugs have diverged from their ancestral species. This did not happen millions of years ago, but in the recent past, and in the composite photograph below, which illustrates the evolution of the bedbug , you can see that the genetic contribution of the ancestral flying bug still remains influential, in that a bedbug will be found to exist at some point along a continuum, closer to the ancestral flying bug or the modern bedbug, or somewhere in the middle.
Intermediate species are the product of genetic combination, and are not the product of random mutations spread out over millions of years. This is quite evident in the photographs above, in which you can see that the bedbug body shape will be found to exist somewhere along the continuum either closer to the flying bug or to the bedbug, with a mixture of characteristics dependant upon whether the genetic contribution of the ancestor or the bedbug predominates.
Creationists have pointed to what they call 'over lap' in the fossil record as evidence that evolution is false. For example, fossil hominids are found to overlap in the fossil record, whereas one would expect them to be separated, which would have to be the case if the ancestors of human beings were gradually randomly mutating into new forms over a time span of millions of years. Evidence for overlap is not evidence against evolution, but rather is evidence that the Darwinian theory of evolution is inadequate. We should not be surprised if we see evidence for species which seem to be intermediate forms which also, based upon their position in the fossil record, appear to live at the same time as species that were said to follow. The reason for this overlap is that the 'revolution of life' occurs quite suddenly, and not gradually, and the intermediate forms are produced as the result of genetic combinations, not random mutations. This occurs because the old gives birth to the new, a revolutionary process, and then, for a period of time the old coexists with the new as the changes propagate at the population level, the evolutionary part of the process, which is much slower since it requires many generations. The new genes, suddenly introduced (the revolutionary development) must be dominant for the following evolutionary process to successfully propagate the newly introduced genes at the population level.
I found one anomalous nymph which was the product of cross breeding between this primitive line of bedbugs, which was the end product of an earlier stage of the adaptation of the flying bug (more on this later) and the more modern majority population of better adapted bedbugs. This nymph resembled the nymph you can see at the lower right in the photograph from the University of Toronto. It was elongated, with a slight oval shape, and it was perfectly flat. It had the 'pointed tail' much like the insect in the photograph from the University of Kentucky, and it was swollen in the middle (the influence of the genes for the oval shape), but unlike the insect in that photograph, which was rounded, rather than flat, this insect was perfectly flat.
The examination of the result of the cross breeding which occurred between these two lines led me to draw the conclusion that in this population the genes for flatness were very dominant genes. Crossbreeding the primitive line with the modern line resulted in a perfectly flat bug. The genes for 'oval roundness' were also dominant, as could be seen in the swelling in the mid-section of the insect. However the genes for the oval were not as dominant as the genes for flatness and therefore it would take many generations of breeding for the oval shape to replace the deprecated elongated shape of the ancestral flying bug.
Therefore the conclusion that I draw from this observation is that the evolution of species proceeds by means of the sudden introduction of new dominant traits which must then propagate at the population level through generations of breeding. The new dominant trait could be introduced by a single insect at some time in the past. This trait then propagates not by means of 'natural selection' but rather because it is a dominant trait. The introduction of the new trait is 'revolutionary' and the propagation of the new trait is evolutionary.
The same principle of 'revolutionary change' followed by 'evolutionary propagation' could be seen in the development of pesticide resistance in these insects. Bedbugs have been present in this building for five years. About once every year or year and a half, there would be a minor outbreak of bedbugs reported in a single suite (contrary to urban legends concerning bedbugs, they are not virulently pestilential, but rather the pestilence we observe is a consequence of human behavior, for the human adaptation to pesticide resistance is to employ pesticides more aggressively, which then results in not only ever increasing pesticide resistance, but also rapidly spreads bedbugs, since the reaction of the pesticide resistant bedbug to pesticides is aggression which makes the insects spread very rapidly...in this way spraying the pesticide resistant bedbug with pesticides can be seen to be like a pyramid scam, where the people stuck at the bottom of the pyramid eventually get stuck with a virulently resistant strain of bugs at the end of the process...you can read more about my personal experiences with what I called 'the Frankenstein bug' which results from spraying pesticide resistant bedbugs with pesticides in my bedbug zipfile).
Each time there was one of these outbreaks of bedbugs, it would be interpreted as 'a new infestation of bugs', when actually it was the evidence for the existence of the pesticide resistant bedbug in the building. What happens is that pesticide resistance is a 'revolutionary change' which can be introduced into a population by a single insect. The genes for resistance must then propagate throughout the entire population. This requires repeated spraying of pesticides to constantly kill off the weaker insects, thus giving the genes for resistance the edge when bedbugs breed. This breakthrough was achieved in this building when the bedbugs were sprayed about one and half years before I discovered them in my suite. We know this occurred for when the latest round of spraying began the pattern was different. Instead of 'exterminating' the bedbugs, which was what people thought had resulted from the previous spraying of the insects, we wound up with aggressively spreading bedbugs which suddenly invaded suites on three floors of the building. This never happened before, because the genes for resistance were not widespread at the population level. All that was required was that young female nymphs, with pesticide resistance and which had never been bred, survive the spraying, and then be free to mate with only surviving pesticide resistant males, thus allowing a sudden growth to take place in the population of resistant insects. This breakthrough occurred the last time the bugs were sprayed, about a year and half before they were then detected in my suite. (I managed to convince the landlord that a new strategy was required, and this then resulted in a switch to a different pesticide, which resulted in a knockdown of the population. At the present time there is a small surviving colony of insects with multiple pesticide resistance present in a single suite, and so one must assume that the process will continue until finally, at some time in the future, the entire building I live in is overrun with bedbugs which are resistant to all pesticides, since that is how this works out at the end of it all, if you think long term...as I said it is like a pyramid scam, in which someone 'exterminates' the bedbug today, and benefits, only to leave everyone else at the bottom of the pyramid with virulent strains of bedbugs).
The evolution of species proceeds in the same way - there is a revolutionary change (the introduction of the new gene, which can be introduced by a single individual), followed by evolutionary change (propagation of the new gene at the population level). The process of evolutionary change can proceed rapidly if the ancestral species is driven to extinction, which then eliminates its genetic contribution (this principle can be seen at work in the development of pesticide resistance in insects, which is a rapid process, taking only years or decades at the most to achieve, because human beings help the insects by ridding them of the unwanted genes when they kill the weaker insects)
9. The introduction of new dominant genes (the process of revolutionary change in species) is not the product of 'random mutations' which are then 'naturally selected' (or 'deselected', should this occur) but rather is the result of a goal oriented process of directed change for the express purpose of achieving a specific outcome (the adaptation of species in such a way as to allow the species to accomplish a strategy and thus survive). 'Biological algorithms' (the 'software of life') is much more powerful and much more sophisticated than our antiquated ideas about evolution would allow. The evidence for this sophistication is everywhere, and becomes even more obvious when we consider that revolutionary changes are harmonious, and work like the separate instruments which when played together create a symphony. It is also interesting to note that in the case of the bedbug we do not see evidence of 'sour notes', which we would expect if such a symphony were to be the result of 'random selection'. There are even more interesting examples in more complex creatures where there is both no evidence of the production of such 'sour notes' and where the production of such 'sour notes' would be forbidden since each note is required if the symphony is to be a symphony at all.
The bedbug is a brand new species of insect which is currently going through the process of evolutionary change in real time. In this way, this insect would appear to be unique. If there is any other higher life form which is currently going through the process of evolving into a new species, I am unaware of it, and given the controversy surrounding evolution, this is strong evidence that the bedbug is unique, for if there was convincing evidence for the ongoing evolution of a higher order species we would hear about it for sure. Therefore, we conclude that there is no such evidence, or an alternative explanation would be that evolution is taking place, but our prevailing ideology has blinded us to the possibility, and thus evolution occurs without being recognized (for it would be assumed that the process could not be detected, taking millions of years and occurring so slowly as to be undetectable in real time...here I am excluding from consideration the constant evolution of simple organism such as bacteria and viruses, organisms which experience constant adaptation pressure and thus constantly evolve, and which also engage in such exotic practices as direct gene swapping, which ensures constant evolution and change even in the absence of such adaptation pressure - in this way such simple creatures can be seen to be experimenting with simple random mutations, which are then subject to 'natural selection', being either rejected or accepted depending on the results of the endless experimentation we see in such simple life forms).
The simple model of Darwinian evolution (random mutations and 'natural selection') are adequate to explain much of what we see occurring under the microscope, but the model falls apart when employed to explain the types of changes that we see taking place in more complex life forms.
An example of this can be seen when we consider the evolution of bedbugs. According to conventional wisdom, which you hear all the time, bedbugs are ancient creatures, millions of years old, which through the process of random mutations and natural selection have become the finely tuned insects we know today as 'bedbugs'. One look at the evidence is enough to convince anyone that a bedbug is not millions of years old, but is a brand new bug which is in the process of becoming a new species of insect, a process which is incomplete at the present time. That such a thing should have been missed, in particular when we consider the great controversy raging over evolution, is a fine example of how a dogmatic insistence on employing Darwinism as the supposed all purpose and more than adequate explanation for the development of life on earth results in a peculiar form of blindness which then causes people to miss even the obvious. The reason for this blindness is that a sophisticated insect like that bedbug would require millions of years to develop such sophistication if the sophistication was the result of nothing more than 'random mutations' which were then either 'naturally selected' or 'deselected', and so therefore since a bedbug cannot be a new insect, which would violate current dogma, it must be an old insect, even if it is not an old insect, for how else could this have happened?
Observation of two different population lines of bedbugs leads me to conclude that the evolution of bedbugs has proceeded in stages. The more primitive version of the insect has the elongated aerodynamic rounded body shape of the flying bug from which bedbugs have emerged. The atrophied remains of wings can be found on the backs of these insects. I have never seen a primitive throw back with visible remnants of residual wings (a report of such a thing would be very interesting to say the least). For this reason I conclude that the bedbug must have existed in this primitive form for a period of time (long enough for its wings to atrophy as it abandoned the strategy of flying, and became a crawling bug instead).
The development of the oval shaped flat insect which we now as the modern bedbug is evidence for the latest stage of bedbug evolution. The elongated shape of a flying bug is suitable for a flying bug, indeed it is required, but a bedbug requires a completely different body shape. A flying bug is an insect which would be found out in the environment, flying here and there, and like the mosquito, such an insect would bite a diverse collection of species. A specialized insect, like the bedbug, which now specializes in biting only one species, a human being, must abandon the strategy of the flying bug, and eventually it must abandon the body shape of a flying bug as well.
The development of the new flat oval bedbug body shape is a response to a previous suite of adaptations made by the ancestral species, the flying bug, when it became fixated upon biting human beings. It became a crawling bug which only bit people when they were in the deepest stages of REM sleep, for that is the only really safe time to be biting human beings. It has specially padded feet, so that its crawl is undetectable on human skin (this is the voice of experience talking here) and it employs an anaesthetic, so that its bite is painless, both adaptations employed for the purpose of ensuring that sleeping humans remains sleeping while they are being bitten. I had two population lines of bedbugs in my place. The majority population were circular and flat, the modern bedbug, and the minority population were elongated and tubular insects (which represented the state of development of the bedbug before the introduction of the genes for the new flat, circular body shape, which must have been a relatively recent innovation, given how pervasive the influence of the older tubular body shape remains in the bedbug population). I also noticed that a minority of my bedbug bites resulted in painful welts, much like those of a mosquito, only worse than that, while the majority of my bedbug bites were simple puncture wounds, the only symptom I experienced being a delayed itching reaction that occurred five or six hours after awakening (the idea here being that I would not be scratching myself in bed, thus causing me to wonder what was in my bed that would be making me itch, which would then get me thinking about fleas, or perhaps even bedbugs). People often say that 'some people are allergic to bedbug bites', thus explaining those welts, while some people are not allergic, thus explaining the lack of welts, but my experience has been that primitive bedbugs leave welts while modern bedbugs do not. Perhaps it would be better to say that the genes for primitive bites result in primitive bites, because I pulled a perfectly circular nymph off of my face, after that nymph had bitten twice and left two nasty welts, so obviously even a perfectly round bedbug with the modern body can still leave a welt if it has inherited the genes for the primitive bite. This led me to conclude that when the ancestors of bedbugs were flying bugs they were as careless about the bite as is still the case with the mosquito, an insect that does not bother with anaesthetics and which leaves swollen welts.
These observations led me to conclude that the genes for an inconspicuous bite, flatness and roundness are the latest stage in the evolution of bedbugs, and that these three adaptation are interrelated, for any insect that leaves such nasty welts will be an insect that must keep itself hidden within inaccessible cracks and crevices. It must not crawl, and therefore should possess a large container (the circular oval) so that it can bite less often and minimize the risk associated with crawling, and it must also stop leaving welts, but instead leave behind only puncture wounds. As for that itching, which remains a problem, it would be better if there was no itching, but failing that, all itching must not occur in bed, thus arousing suspicion, something to be avoided by a bug that would like to become almost completely invisible. This suite of adaptations are all brand new, and have not yet completely propagated at the population level, and indeed there are still some very primitive population lines in which these brand new bedbug adaptations are found to be completely absent, which is a clear indication of just how new this latest suite of adaptations for these new genes were only introduced in the recent past.
It is interesting to note here that the newly introduced genes are not genes which must compete with randomly mutated competing genes expressing a variety of undesirable characteristics (we would then expect to see bizarre bedbugs competing in the contest to pass along genes, only to be 'deselected' by nature, but we do not see this. Instead we see the previous version of the primitive bedbug, and an interrelated suite of specialized adaptations which are goal oriented in that they specifically target weaknesses in the earlier version of the insect which prevent the insect from achieving its goal - the goal being to be a bedbug, which is the survival strategy of an insect specializing in biting only human beings, while at the same time surviving rather than being driven into extinction).
It is also interesting to note here that we do not see 'random mutations' even over great spans of time, when such 'random mutations' would have had more than enough time to manifest themselves, but instead we see stability, even over great spans of time, except in those cases where see the results of evolution. Therefore it must be the case that only species which evolved were found to be 'randomly mutating', which was handy, because they were evolving and that had to happen somehow. As for the creatures that did not evolve, but which maintained a steady state, somehow these creatures avoided the undesirable consequences of any potentially harmful 'random mutations' and they were successful in doing this for tens and even hundreds of millions of years. It is said that such mutations occur, and they do, but it is also self evident from the study of the evidence that the natural systems which are in place to prevent these harmful 'random mutations', while they are not one hundred percent perfect, are nevertheless perfect enough to maintain the stability of stable creatures over vast stretches of time. We also see that only the bedbug is evolving (unless it turns out that we are blinded by our ideology, and thus missed the evidence of evolving creatures which was right under our noses). From all this we can conclude that creatures only evolve when they are required to evolve, and that evolution of species is not the product of random processes, but rather is a process which requires a trigger (it is a response to 'adaptation pressure' and the resulting changes are goal oriented, which is then evidence for the as yet unrecognized sophistication and power of nature's 'biological algorithms', the 'software of life', which processes input from the environment and then initiates what is obviously a symphony of harmonious changes in pursuit of a specific goal).
There are species of honeybees that have remained the same for over a hundred million years. They were around when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. They have not changed, but then why would they change? They were stable within their environmental niche, and thus they were not subject to 'adaptation pressure'. You do not see all sorts of transitional shapes in such a bee, as you can see in the bedbug, because bees are a very ancient, and very stable species, while the bedbug is a brand new and thus very unstable species because it is evolving into a new life form. The transitional forms are not the product of 'random mutations' but rather are seen to be the result of 'genetic mixing', and we do not see in the mix a lot of competing 'random mutations', but rather the results of genetic combinations between the selected adaptations, and the previously existing inadequate suite of adaptations, and there is nothing 'random' about that process. If there was anything 'random' about the evolution of species we would expect to see randomness, but we do not, because the process is not random, nor could it ever be random and produce the type of precision that the evidence actually exhibits. To introduce 'randomness' is to introduce speculation for the purposes of upholding dogma, for the evidence tells us that randomness is nonexistent in this particular process. If bedbugs are not 'randomly mutating' as they evolve into a new species today, right before our eyes, then it is unlikely that they randomly mutated when they developed the previous suite of inadequate adaptations, which, because they were inadequate, became the trigger for the development of new suite of interrelated adaptations so that the bedbugs could adapt. Bacteria may experiment blindly and randomly with random mutations, but bedbugs do not, for they rely upon the sophisticated power of the 'software of life', and so they can skip the bit of randomly mutating various chemical compounds for the syringe they have on their snouts and go straight to the anaesthetic and the anticoagulant in one revolutionary step, and then leave the process of evolutionary propagation to spread the genes for this adaptation at the population level. The process of the development of a new species is a revolutionary sudden change that can begin with a single female bedbug laying eggs carrying the genetic code for the next round of evolutionary propagation (the changes we see exhibited by this population line could then be traced back in time to their original source at a single fixed point in time before the genes began to propagate through the entire population).
Another very interesting example of sudden revolutionary change which required an harmonious suite of specialized adaptations is found in the story of the evolution of the modern Giraffe. Not only is this the story of the Giraffe, it is also the story of the conflict between science and religion, for it illustrates that the reason why 'Creationists' are inflicting a defeat upon scientists is because scientists are clinging stubbornly to a collapsing and obsolete ideology, which then allows them to be pummeled mercilessly by 'Creationists' and the result is the wide spread rejection of archaic Darwinism in the broader public, a problem that scientists then try to blame and the deceitful tactics employed by 'Creationists', while the truth of the matter is that part of the blame must be shared by scientists. The rise of Creationism is one consequence of the collapse of an archaic and badly outdated dogmatic ideology which then requires our scientists to give these tortured explanations which no one believes, because it is all so far fetched and incredible, which then opens the door to the 'Creationist', which will then open the door to fascism, since all religion is politics in another form, which then causes our scientists to be even more reactionary, because they don't want that, and this does not help.
As an interesting example of this sort of thing we will compare the way that 'Creationists' successfully exploit the dogmatism of scientists by examining fist the dogmatic and factually incorrect arguments employed by scientists when they encounter a problem with Darwinism. What they do is they cheat and twist the facts and they ignore even the obvious, and then the scientists get the shit kicked out of them by the Creationists. I thought that this was an interesting example of this sort of thing, in that it demonstrates an even more complex suite of adaptations than what we see in our living example of evolution, the simple creature the bedbug, which is an insect. It is taken from the page The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (pdf)
First, speaking for the Darwinists, we have Richard Dawkins, who will describe the evolution of the Giraffe from the point of view of someone who believes that the Giraffe was a product of random mutations over millions of years, with, of course, natural selection then choosing such traits as the long neck because it was a good adaptation for that Giraffe. Dawkins has a problem, in that the fossil record shows that all of a sudden there was a Giraffe. There are no small Giraffes, followed by medium Giraffes, and then a long necked Giraffe. Suddenly there were Giraffes, and of course the Creationist will then insist that God said 'abracadabra' and then suddenly there was a Giraffe, and then attempt to use the fossil record as evidence for Creationist abracadabra. In truth, as we shall see, the sudden appearance of the Giraffe does not 'disprove evolution' (Creationism is a cheat) but rather it disproves primitive and outdated Darwinism, since you see, the software of life is remarkably powerful, and for this reason the 'revolution of life' produced that Giraffe.
However Dawkins, even though he has no evidence, will proceed to argue for the evolution of the Giraffe, and for simple Darwinism, and when he is done, we will see how quickly he gets the supreme shit kicked out of him by Creationism. According to Dawkins,
Giraffes have evolved from an ancestor rather like a modern okapi ..The most conspicuous change is the elongation of the neck. Could this have come about in a single, large mutation? I hasten to say that I am sure it didn't .."A Boeing 747 mutation like a brand-new complex eye - complete with iris diaphragm and refocusable lens, springing from nothing, like Pallas Athene from the brow of Zeus — that can never happen, not in a billion billion years. But, like the stretching of the DC8, the giraffe's neck could have sprung out in a single mutational step (though I bet it didn't). What is the difference? It isn't that the neck is noticeably less complicated than the eye. For all I know it may be more complicated. No, what matters is the complexity of the difference between the earlier neck and the later one. This difference is slight, at least when compared with the difference between no eye and a modern eye. The giraffe's neck has the same complicated arrangement of parts as the okapi (and presumably as the giraffe's own short-necked ancestor). There is the same sequence of seven [eight in Giraffa — note by W.-E. L.] vertebrae, each with its associated blood vessels, nerves, ligaments and blocks of muscle. The difference is that each vertebra is a lot longer, and all its associated parts are stretched or spaced out in proportion..."The point is that you may only have to change one thing in the developing embryo in order to quadruple the length of the neck. Say you just have to change the rate at which the vertebral primordia grow, and everything else follows. ..But in order to make an eye develop from bare skin you have to change, not one rate but hundreds (see Chapter 5). If an okapi mutated to produce a giraffe's neck it would be a Stretched DC8 macro-mutation, not a 747 macro- mutation. It is therefore a possibility which need not be totally ruled out. Nothing new is added, in the way of complication. The fuselage is elongated, with all that entails, but it is a stretching of existing complexity, not an introduction of new complexity "
There are two problems here. On is that Dawkins insists that the difference between an Ocapi and the Giraffe is just a simple matter of a long neck. This is false, as the Ocapi and its ancestral species are small herbivores that come up to about the kneecaps of a Giraffe. Second, Dawkins suggests that the explanation for the fact that there are no intermediate fossil Giraffes can possibly be explained by a single mutation, which resulted in a long necked Giraffe, and he then insists, that while he still believes that random mutations over a long time produced the Giraffe, even though the evidence suggests otherwise, he is still comfortable with having a Giraffe suddenly grow a long neck, since necks are simple organs and all that is required is to stretch the neck, which could easily have happened in one random mutation. Thus Dawkins can have his cake and eat it too, for he can suggest that the Giraffe randomly mutated for a long time, and natural selection then chose the long necked Giraffe, which is always his preference, and failing that he can insist that just one random mutation would be enough to stretch that neck of that Giraffe, thus still maintaining his Darwinist view point, no matter what the evidence might be. It works out for him either way.
However it turns out that what a Giraffe requires is a suite of complementary adaptations, which, as in the case of the bedbug, emerged at once, although in the case of the Giraffe, which is a more complex creature than the insect, none of the elements in this suite of adaptations are optional. It turns out that the development of the long necked Giraffe requires the composition of a symphony, and cannot be explained by resorting to a single mutation.
Dawkin's critic gives us one example of just how a Creationist can respond to the dogmatism of science when confronted with the failures of collapsing Darwinism (which continues to decay the more evidence is uncovered).
"For rumination, semi-solid food [pulp, mash] must be forced over 3 m high from the reticulum stomach to the mouth!" (Bertelsmann Lexikon der Tiere 1992, p. 259.) For this, the giraffe is equipped with a special muscular esophagus. "The uniform circulation of blood to the different body parts makes several adaptations of the heart, arterial and venous systems necessary" (Marcon and Mongini: Die Grosse Encyclopedie der Tierwelt 1988, p. 303). To avoid cerebral hypoxaemia (blood shortage) by the movement of the head from drinking water at ground level, to – seconds later – 5 m height, this animal is equipped with appropriate muscular arteries. Furthermore, it has a complicated system of valves in the veins, as well as a "wundernetz", a rete mirabile, of blood-storing arteries at the brain base. Also, the lengths, powers/strengths and functions of the skeletal, muscle and nervous systems, etc. must be precisely in tune with each other, if the animal is to be capable of survival. Davis and Kenyon summarize the main points as follows (1993, p. 13):
"When standing upright, its blood pressure must be extremely high to force blood up its long neck; this in turn requires a very strong heart. But when the giraffe lowers its head to eat or drink, the blood rushes down and could produce such high pressure in the head that the blood vessels would burst. To counter this effect, the giraffe is equipped with a coordinated system of blood pressure controls. Pressure sensors along the neck's arteries monitor the blood pressure and activate contraction of the artery walls (along with other mechanisms) to counter the increase in pressure."
McGowan lists additional details (1991, pp.101/103):
"The blood leaving the giraffe's heart has to do more than just reach the level of the head, it has to be at a high enough pressure to pass through all the fine vessels, the capillaries, that supply the brain and other organs. To achieve this the blood leaves the heart at a pressure of 200-300 mm Hg [260-350 mm Hg, Starck 1995, p. 206(2a)], which is probably the highest blood pressure of any living animal (Warren, 1974; Hargens et al., 1987). A giraffe's blood pressure is so high that it would probably rupture the blood vessels of any other animal, but two mechanisms appear to prevent this. First, the arterial walls are much thicker than in other animals. Second, the fluid that bathes the cells of the body is maintained at a high pressure; this is largely achieved by the thick skin, which is tightly stretched over the body and which functions like the anti-gravity suit worn by pilots of fast aircraft.
...Another problem posed by the possession of a long neck is the large volume of air in the trachea, the tube that connects the back of the throat with the lungs. This air is unavailable for respiration and the space it occupies is consequently referred to as the dead space. The dead space has a volume of about five pints (2,5 l) in the giraffe. Since this air has to be moved each time the animal breathes, the rate of ventilation has to be increased to compensate for the reduced air flow. A resting giraffe takes about twenty breaths per minute, compared with our twelve and an elephant's ten; this is a very high respiration rate for such a large animal."
Correspondingly efficient and "big lungs" have the task of balancing respiration "through a 10 feet long tube; many muscles, tendons, and bones had to be modified harmoniuosly" (Wesson 1991, p. 226)
Davis and Kenyon summarize the problems of the giraffe for the synthetic evolutionary theory as follows (1993, p. 13, my italics):
"In short, the giraffe represents not a mere collection of individual traits but a package of interrelated adaptations. It is put together according to an overall design that integrates all parts into a single pattern. Where did such an adaptational package come from?
According to Darwinian theory, the giraffe evolved to its present form by the accumulation of individual, random changes preserved by natural selection. But it is difficult to explain how a random process could offer to natural selection an integrated package of adaptations, even over time. Random mutations might adequately explain change in a relatively isolated trait, such as color. But major changes, like the macroevolution of the giraffe from some other animal, would require an extensive suite of coordinated adaptations."
10. The evolution of a new species begins with an abrupt and sudden change and the process can start with a single individual. The steady state is normative, and evolution of species is exceptional among the higher order creatures. The process requires a trigger. Behavior can proceed physical change, in the case where a new behavior is found to be in conflict with physical limitations or when physical limitations threaten the survival of the species. In both cases the purpose of the process is to enable survival as opposed to extinction.
A bedbug is an insect, and therefore it is a simple creature. Insects exhibit a limited range of behaviors which they repeat over and over again. This makes an insect an excellent simple model which can be employed to illustrate the principles of evolution.
Bedbugs are currently going through a second phase of evolutionary development, and we can see an interrelated suite of three adaptations currently propagating through the species at the population level through the evolutionary process of successive breeding cycles. All of these physical changes can be seen to have been preceded by behavioral changes in the insect, which then brought the behavior of the insect into conflict with the physical limitations of its body. The strategy adopted by the bedbug was to become a secretive, almost invisible insect which would bite people in bed, while they were sleeping and thus in the deepest stage of REM sleep. However the bedbug still retained the obsolete body shape of a flying bug. Flatness is desirable for a bedbug, since it allows the insect to secretly hide in even the narrowest cracks. Oval roundness is desirable since it provides the largest possible container size, allowing the bedbug to gorge, by biting repeatedly in quick succession, and then remain hiding in secret for the longest possible time before it bites again. A bite which is a simple puncture wound with no associated swelling is less detectable and thus more secretive than the welt left by flying bug such as a mosquito. These three adaptations are therefore interrelated because they all address the need for secrecy and are intended to bring the physical body of the insect into harmony with its new behavior patterns. Given that it is these three adaptations which are currently propagating simultaneously through the species it is reasonable to conclude that these are not the result of "random mutations" but rather that the 'software of life' is much more sophisticated and powerful than our current ideology will admit or allow.
a similar conflict between behavior and the need to survive and an inadequate physical form can be seen in the example of the Giraffe which needed a longer neck in order to better withstand droughts by enabling the animal to reach food in the tree tops (trees have deep tap roots and can continue to produce vegetation even during times of surface drought). Iin the case of both the Giraffe and the bedbug harmony could only be achieved by introducing a suite of interrelated adaptations simultaneously. This has occurred in the bedbug, something we can observe now, and therefore there is no reason not to conclude that it also happened in more complex form in the Giraffe, since the same process was at work in both cases.
"Natural Selection" and the evolution of bedbugs
11. The evolution of species consists of a process divided into two parts. The first stage is 'revolutionary' and involves the sudden introduction of dominant genes, while the second stage is 'evolutionary' where the genes introduced by a single individual then propagate at the population level. Where the genes are not 'aggressively dominant', as in the case of the bedbugs, intermediate forms can appear which are the result of genetic combinations, the mixing of the genes of the ancestral form of the evolving species and the revolutionary new form of the destination species. When the suite of genes introduced are 'aggressively dominant' we would not see such genetic combinations and the process would not produce such intermediate forms, but rather we would expect to see 'gaps' or what would be called 'missing links'.
There is no fossil evidence to support the gradual lengthening of the neck of a giraffe. According to the fossil evidence, the long necked giraffe suddenly appeared, with no antecedent intermediate species. This is a problem for the prevailing theory of evolution (simple Darwinism) which attempts to explain the development of the giraffe's neck as the result of a long period of adaptation during which time 'random mutations' were subject to 'natural selection'. The lengthening of the neck of a giraffe requires a cascade of adaptations to occur throughout the body of the giraffe, and adaptation is required down to the cellular level, so that there is hardly a single cell in the body of a giraffe which must not be modified in order to accommodate the long neck of the giraffe. If 'random mutations' were to explain the increase in the neck of the giraffe then it is required that the fossil evidence support this hypothesis, but nevertheless simple Darwinists continue to speak of the 'gradual evolution' of the neck of the giraffe in the absence of such evidence. Such evidence should be abundant, indeed, it must be abundant if it were true that the complex suite of adaptations required by the long necked giraffe were produced by the process described by simple Darwinism.
The problem here is that scientific discovery has outpaced the evolution of evolutionary theory, and now we are stuck with an obsolete theory of evolution while our scientists remain mired in a bog of dogmatism. When our scientists are challenged, they accuse their opponents of 'taking advantage of our ignorance', which is a tacit admission that no evidence exists to support their position, and then they make a speculative appeal to future evidence which does not exist, but which they hope will exist someday, which then allows our scientists to ignore the evidence which does exist and then do science based upon evidence which does not exist as though it did exist, which is a damn peculiar way to do science. The history of science illustrates the principle that science progresses through a series of constant insurrections which overthrow bogged down dogmatic systems that have outlived their usefulness but nevertheless are presumptuous and continue to hang about long after they have begun gong through the process of putrefaction and decay (which then explains why science can only make progress through these continual revolutionary insurrections, since the high posts become encrusted with the barnacles of dogmatism, and the only way forward is through a revolutionary overthrow of those decayed and barnacle encrusted dead systems which have been institutionalized and thus entrenched and able to control such things as grants for research and so on).
In my judgment the best way to move science forward would be to win the battle for the public mind, something I am quite confident I can manage, and then leave our scientists to catch up later. Given that nothing has achieved the status of a sacred dogma like that simple Darwinism, and thus given that this dogma has now become an unquestionable orthodoxy presided over by the intolerant papacy of our scientific hierarchy it could take some time for our scientists to catch up with the rest of the population, and the only thing one can do is to let them move at their own pace. One lesson to be learned here is that there is nothing more offensive than the idea of 'sacred doctrines' or 'unquestionable orthodoxy' in our sciences, and such rottenness should never be able to find a home there where according to our professed ideals, it has no place, but nevertheless always seems to find a way to move in and set up shop none the less.
Just to make the point clear, if our scientists want to continue to write papers about the 'gradual evolution' of the giraffe neck, by means of random neck mutations over a long period of time, which would, of course, of necessity have to include lots of other such random cellular mutations and what not, then our scientists should first find a hell of pile of intermediate giraffes, and given that such a pile of giraffe fossils would be required and thus should be plentiful and quite available, given how many of them there would have to be, that shouldn't prove to be a problem. Now while they continue the long restless search for those abundant, and yet missing, in between giraffe fossils, I would prefer to get back to doing science with the evidence that really does exists, and hopefully before to much more time has passed, our scientists will return from their extended vacation in the land of Oz where they were led off track doing science based upon fantasies instead of using evidence like they were supposed to be doing, but did not, because unfortunately the evidence kept contradicting the Holy of Holies. Until such a time as these abundant dead medium giraffes flood the labs of academia, thus saving the Most Sacred Holy Dogma from what now appears to be an inevitable trip to the dustbins of history, I would expect that our scientists might consider not constantly referring to this mythological creature when they are writing up more of those scientific papers, because you do require evidence when you are doing science, remember. That's how that works. Alright. Just thought I would remind everyone of one of those foundational principles of the scientific method lest we forget. (But I digress...)
The evolution of the long necked giraffe is one of the classic examples of a 'missing link'. The presence of such missing links in the fossil record does not prove that evolution is false, but rather it only proves conclusively and once and for all that 'simple Darwinism' is inadequate as an explanation for the evolution of life on earth.
In the case of the bedbugs the introduction of genes that are not aggressively dominant is not life threatening, for we can still see some extremely primitive population lines of bedbugs that still possess the deprecated archaic characteristics of the flying bug body, and they have survived into the modern world without once ever coming into contact with the genes of the more modern bedbug. We can see that a bedbug can survive without being as flat as a pancake or round like a circle, and so the fact that such genes are dominant, but not aggressively dominant only means that bedbugs will have to do more work, by breeding over and over again, before they become flat and round like a circle.
As we can see, the evolution of bedbugs at the present time involves the process of disseminating a simple suite of dominant genes at the population level. If we scale up, to the size of a giraffe, then we can see how a similar process of disseminating a suite of dominant genes would also produce a long necked giraffe, and this would have to be a suite of genes, and not just a single gene, since the entire body of the giraffe down to the cellular level must be modified and adapted in order to accommodate the desired new feature, the elongated neck. In the case of the giraffe what is required is a suite of aggressively dominant genes, so that the new giraffe can overwhelm its ancestral parent when the process enters the evolutionary phase, and those genes begin to propagate at the population level. The reason for this is obvious, for the consequences would be fatal for that giraffe if the required modifications were not made all at once. Giraffes cannot afford to take their sweet time and breed three or four times or more, as in the case of the bedbug, because they wouldn't get the chance to breed the second time, because they would be dead, and it is pretty hard to breed when you are dead.
The consequence of the introduction of such aggressively dominant genes is that we will find 'missing links' or 'gaps' in the fossil record. Where such missing links are found is evidence for the introduction of a suite of aggressive genes. Where the genes are less aggressively dominant, as in the case of the bedbugs, the result is the production of a sequence of intermediate forms, which can bear an uncanny resemblance to what we might see if a creature was to gradually randomly mutate and evolve slowly into a new form, as you can see in the photographic montage. Fortunately bedbugs are an example of living evolution so there is no danger that the evidence will be misinterpreted. We can also see that the bedbug existed in a more primitive state for a period of time, and that what we are seeing today is the second stage of the evolution of bedbugs. Sometimes an intermediate state is an intermediate state, and sometimes the illusion of an intermediate state is produced by the phenomenon of genetic combinations. This leads us to wonder when an intermediate state is an intermediate state and when it is not, since this principle has consequences when it comes time to interpret the fossil record. The answer is simple. When fossils overlap, this is evidence for genetic mixing, but if fossils are properly sequentially spaced in the fossil record, this is evidence for a true intermediate state. Overlap is caused by less than fully dominant genes introduced by a single individual before the process of evolutionary dissemination begins to propagate the genes at the population level. 'Missing links' are the result of a sudden introduction of a suite of very aggressively dominant genes.
The sudden appearance of species in the fossil record is the consequence of the abrupt introduction of a suite of dominant genes. We see this happening in real time in the bedbugs, since bedbugs are not 'randomly mutating' but are seen to be propagating dominant genes. This also explains the sudden appearance of the long necked giraffe. It also explains the Cambrian explosion. As in the case of the long necked giraffe, the simple Darwinist will suggest that the Cambrian explosion is 'not real'. It is only apparent, and this then allows the simple Darwinist to continue to be a simple Darwinist, since simple Darwinists are allowed to do science based upon imaginary nonexistent evidence, and remarkably, they can still get grant money, since apparently simple Darwinists also hold the purse string, which is convenient, if you happen to be a simple Darwinist.
12. 'Natural selection' is restricted to the revolutionary domain, and is deprecated during the evolutionary phase.
According to the creation myth found in sacred scriptures, which I often hear quoted, the bedbug is an insect that evolved by slowly randomly mutating over millions of years, while a dumb and blind gardener used a hoe to weed among those random bedbug mutations until finally we all got pestered by bedbugs today, just as bedbugs were pestering primitive proto-humans in the ancient past. We can imagine, that as the bedbugs mutated very slowly over time, there was a time when bedbugs had the syringe on the end of their snouts loaded with arsenic, and fortunately, the dumb and blind gardener, which has taken the place of Zeus in out much more modern creation myth, knocked down that random mutation with a hoe, and kept weeding among those random bedbug mutations until finally bedbugs were equipped with an anaesthetic, creating a painless bite, and an anticoagulant. These two random mutations the dumb blind gardener did knock down with a hoe, which is obvious, since we have bedbugs today and they all produce these two specialized chemical compounds.
Now the 'Creationist' will tell us that God created the bedbug, which was a very intelligently designed bug, but was also one hell of a bad idea. Our scientists have their own creation myth, and they will tell us that the bedbug was produced over millions of years by Zeus, wielding a garden hoe called 'Natuiral Selection.' Of course before any self respecting scientist will spread around that creation myth they will do the more modern and thus more sophisticated thing, and they will first gouge the eyeballs out of the head of Zeus and then give him a very severe lobotomy, since we would not want to embarrass ourselves by having gods in our creation myths, like our ancestors did, and since the solution is apparently a lobotomy once Zeus has been thus taken care of our scientists will then hand Zeus a hoe and send him back out to the garden so that we can still have creation myths, but not embarrass ourselves by having the primitive myth like our ancestors did but instead we can have the much more sophisticated type of creation myth like we have right now.
One thing that quickly becomes apparent when we study the living process of evolution as seen in bedbugs is the notable absence of our societies diety, Zeus with a lobotomy, for it turns out that when dominant genes are seen to be propagating through a population of insects, the services of such dum blind gardener are rendered redundant. Therefore, following the principle known as Occam's Razor, I find it necessary to give our scientists a little shave, by removing that redundant gardener from my theory of evolution, since it is unacceptable to give an unnecessarily complex explanation for a phenomenon when a simple one will do just find, in particular when we consider that dumb Zeus the lobotomized gardener would only be included in such a theory for ideological reasons, which is obvious, because he is redundant, and therefore there would be no other reason to include him in such a theory.
This is not to say that 'natural selection' is redundant, for it is equally obvious that you cannot have dominant genes propagating through a population and then resulting in a superbly adapted bug at the end of the process, without having some natural selection taking place, and given that these are dominant genes, one would hope that the process of selection proceeded with the required intelligence, or there would be abundant evidence of the corruption of life on earth rather than abundant evidence of such superb adaptation found not only in bedbugs, but throughout the natural world. It is therefore obvious that 'natural selection' is restricted to the 'revolutionary' domain since it is useless in the evolutionary domain, and any attempt to introduce some redundant blind gardener into the process would make about as much sense as trying to slam shut the barn door after the horse has already escaped.
What this implies is that the evolution of life on earth is the product of extremely sophisticated software, 'biological algorithms', the 'software of life', for, you see, intelligent design is required and it is obvious that such intelligence cannot be found in an insect such as the bedbug, and while giraffes are smarter than bedbugs, they are not smart enough to understand the intricacies of cellular biology, which, it turns out, if all of a sudden out of nowhere we are going to have long necked giraffes with the required high pressure modifications made to each and every cell in the body of that long necked giraffe.
That 'natural selection' is restricted to the 'revolutionary domain' and is quite redundant in the evolutionary domain also explains why people are now being pestered by bedbugs, for it turns out that bedbugs are not ancient creatures produced by the weeding of that dumb gardener, as the prevailing creation myth found in our Sacred Scriptures tells us, but rather bedbugs are a brand new species and thus are a living laboratory for the study of evolution as it actually occurs, which turns out to differ from the story told in the Holy Books. If we are going to continue to spread around the creation myth about bedbugs then I would suggest that we also explain that the origin of the species known as the mushroom can be traced back to sometime in the past when Zeus, in one of his periodic outbursts of bad temper, starting hurling ball lightening down from the top of Mount Olympus.
Bedbugs are a brand new species and they are evolving quite rapidly, because as is also true of the long necked giraffe, the development of a species is something that can happen quite suddenly. The process is 'revolutionary' and now 'evolutionary' as the bedbugs are teaching us. It turns out that bedbugs are a side effect of the way that human beings impact the environment. Bedbugs are the unforseen and unintended consequence of pressure placed upon the environment by our ancestors, which then placed pressure upon what was once a flying bug like the mosquito. Now if animals become harder to find and thus harder to bite, well there will never be a shortage of people, and while it is true that it is dangerous for a flying bug to specialize in biting only human beings, it is a lot safer to become a bedbug, and thus specialize in biting people at around five in the morning when they are in the deepest stages of REM sleep, and thus in no position to do much about it. It is not a coincidence that we are witnessing the rise of the bedbugs concurrent with the rise of human civilization, for bedbugs are a human creation. They are hitchhikers, those bugs, and the strategy for survival adopted by that flying bug was to back a winner, and since there will always be people, even if the environment is destroyed, that means that there will always be people with bedbugs, for the bedbugs have decided to back a winner and thus hop on board the train to survival.
Bedbugs can teach us just how rapidly a species can appear. There is this reckless arrogance that accompanies our current creation mythology, for people do not consider well the consequences of their actions, for after all, evolution is a very slow and very random process, and therefore the odds of anything to untoward ever happening are quite remote, or so they think. This is an idea people might want to consider when they are getting bitten by bedbugs, and as I am writing this it is a few weeks before Earth Day, April 22nd, and so I would suggest that on Earth Day, people take a moment to stop and think about bedbugs, unless they already have bedbugs, in which case they can think about the Earth and think about bedbugs at the same time every day instead of just on April 22nd.
Bedbug evolution : Parables and Commentary
Since I first found myself shacked up with a bunch of those bedbugs, bedbugs have been the topic de jour since that time. For the longest time I was number one in the world on the Google News Service. Yes, that's right, whenever anyone went searching for news about those bedbugs, the first person they would have the opportunity to listen to me would be me, and given how I was one of the few, if not the only person telling the truth about bedbugs, that seemed like a swell situation to me, because where else could John and Jane Doe turn to for uncompromisingly frank and characteristically blunt information about bedbugs. The rest of our entire culture is found to be sunk in some putrefying swamp of corruption and decay and given how the shepherds do not shepherd the sheep in this place, but rather are found to be eating mutton this always leaves John and Jane Doe to wander to the hillsides surrounded by predators while no one ever bothers to go looking for those lost sheep.
Now it turns out that when you tell the truth in this place, you get censored, and so it finally came to pass that the Google News Service cracked under the pressure applied by that powerful multinational outfit, the chemical lobby, and now every last trace of my acerbic pen has been thoroughly purged, and that includes the archives, since apparently even if I am not number one in the world, I shouldn't be in the world at all, because you still might find someone if they were a voice in the wilderness. Apparently it is not even safe to allow me to live out in the wilderness for that very reason, and really, I should depart the planet before I disturb the plots of plotters or the schemes of schemers or before I can pop any more of those balloons.
Fortunately, I have always anticipated censorship, which is why, from day one, I have always insisted upon distributing ‘e-books', in the form of zip files, and given how many tens and even hundreds of thousands of those zip files I have already distributed, it turns out that censoring me does not accomplish much, other than that it might embarrass the censor when the censor was revealed as a censor by censoring. It also gives me great confidence for now that I have been censored I know that I am certainly the world's number one bed bug blogger, the best on the planet, because they only bother to censor people when they tell an uncomfortable truth. Those are the best kinds of truth, the uncomfortable kind, and the very sort of truth that John and Jane Doe must never be allowed to hear, because that would screw up the plotters and make life complicated for the scammers. This is the very reason that plotters and schemers consolidated all the media on the planet into a giant monopolistic megasaurus, so that they could plot and they could scheme without dealing with the irritating hassle of having ‘journalists' investigating and then ‘reporting news', which is inconvenient. When such a cushy situation has been so assiduously created, and when so many billions have been poured down the drain in pursuit of that futile project, the last thing in the world that they need is to have their very expensive sock puppet taking second place to some el cheapo operation being running from some shack out in the wilderness.
That must be frustrating. It must be very, very frustrating. Alas, it is called free speech, something which, rumor has it, was allegedly supposed to be some kind of ‘right' people had. I recall not to long ago hearing the voice speaking for what is sometimes referred to as ‘the ruling class' saying that I was abusing my right to free speech which they had graciously bestowed upon me in order to do all kinds of plotting against them Now what has been given, can be taken away you see. I just thought I would remind those people that ‘free speech' was something gained when our ancestors pumped those buggers full of hot lead. It was called a revolution and ‘free speech' was not some gracious gift nor an act of noblesse oblige graciously bestowed upon us all by a clique of wanna be dictators, those elite have mores, the robber baron capitalists who are the political base of George Bush.
For now I will leave them to enjoy the fruits of their labors, chasing around some pesticide resistant bedbug and spreading the damn thing all over the country, so that they can earn profits by charging people over and over and over again for bug spray, this sort of thing being the very reason they sunk billions in to that project of theirs purchasing all the media so that they could turn that troublesome thing into the compliant and obedient sock puppet it has become.
The Ant moves to the city
At the same time that human civilization arose on this planet, the ant moved to the city. Ants have been living in cities among the humans for as long as humans have built cities. This has not proved to be a challenge for the ants for ants are very well adapted to living in cities, as we can see every time we step outside, for there are ants everywhere in our cities, and they are doing fine being ants in the city, since being in the city is not much different than being in some field or some forest to an ant.
If we examine the evidence we can see that a flying bug much like the mosquito also moved into the city, and it was this flying bug which was to become the ancestral species of what we now know as the crawling insect called the bedbug. Bedbugs did not appear millions of years ago, as the creation myth of simple Darwinism would suggest was the case, for we can still see what remains of that flying bug crawling around our homes without its wings when our home gets infested with those bedbugs.
The very first, and most primitive bedbug was obviously just that flying bug hiding in someone's bedroom, pretending to be a bedbug, and it turns out that when you are flying bug hiding in the bedroom pretending to be a bedbug, that change in behavior implies a long term commitment to actually becoming a bedbug, which then explains why we can see what remains of that flying bug going through the process of the evolution of species in our bedroom when our bedroom gets over run with bedbugs.
When the ant moves into the city it remains an ant, but when a flying bug starts hiding in bedrooms and pretends to be a bedbug that turns out to be a much more complicated strategy than the flying bug could deal with because only bedbugs are well adapted to being bedbugs while ants are well adapted to being ants and flying bugs are well adapted to being only flying bugs and are not well adapted to be bedbugs. That flying bug was going to have to do a little more than just hide in some bedroom if it was to ever have any hope of actually becoming a bedbug, which was the survival strategy of that insect when human beings began to heavily impact the environment, and causing the animals to disappear.
For the benefit of those who think that causing the animals to disappear or impacting the environment are only modern phenomena I will quote from that ancient document the Bible, where Jeremiah described the collapse of the environment in the Middle East. ‘I looked and behold, there was no life, and all the birds and the animals were gone. I looked and, lo, the fruitful land was turning to desert and all our cities are collapsing into ruins.' The Middle East still has not recovered from such environmental disasters as the razing of the old growth Cedar forests in Lebanon, and it remains covered with wide spread deserts to this day.
It turns out that when our ancestors did such things as destroying the environment they not only destroyed their own civilizations and created new deserts, they also got bedbugs. Or to be more precise they got some flying bug hiding out in their bedrooms pretending to be a bedbug, for it turns out that while human beings might have made the rest of those species dwindle away, and thus become unavailable for biting, a flying bug has to eat somewhere, and so that flying bug found a winning strategy for survival.
I find it fascinating to observe those bedbugs going through the process of evolution, for it turns out that the timing of that flying bug was prescient. The world is currently on the cusp of a massive extinction event caused by human impact on the environment, and at the same time, that flying bug is nearing the end of the process of the evolution of species, and has almost completely transformed itself into a bedbug. There may be many species that get violently pushed over the edge to disappear into oblivion, but that flying bug will not be one of them, because that flying bug already has such a running head start. In this way the flying bug can be seen as a kind of sensitive environmental barometer, for back when human beings were first beginning to put the squeeze on the environment, that flying bug quickly responded by putting the bite on people. Such a quick response was timely, for bedbug evolution was something that was going to proceed at the speed of a crawl, since that is the speed of bedbug when it crawls the planet spreading all the latest updated bedbug genes. The flying bug started adapting early in the morning, and lo and behold, the bedbug came in just under the wire before nightfall, exquisitely adapted to bite people later that night while they were sleeping, thus avoiding the worst of the upcoming great extinction event.
We know that the flying bug once shared an environmental niche with the mosquito. The mosquito remained but the flying bug left and can now be found in your bedroom. This leads me to consider a hypothesis I will call niche expulsion. As I have discovered from my study of those bugs, bedbugs are not aggressive bugs. They are timid, secretive, and even overly cautious insects. It became obvious to me just how over cautious a bedbug is when the pest control company came and sprayed the high rise with pesticides, turning a pesticide resistant bedbug into Frankenstein. Frank was then able to bite me morning, noon, and night, in the kitchen and every other room in the house whenever he damn well felt like it. The bedbug has specially padded feet, and its crawl is undetectable, and when you combine that with a snout syringe loaded with anaesthetics, you can see just how impossible it is to swat a bedbug the same way you might swat a mosquito. You need to get lucky to catch a Frankenstein bedbug biting your face. If you happen to look in a mirror at just the right moment you can catch Frank in the act, but otherwise you can forget it, and you will have Frank up your pant leg, Frank on your neck and down your shirt. If you tuck in your pant legs and wear a turtle neck then you will just be inviting Frank to bite the hell out of your face, since that was all that was available for biting. For this reason I made the wise decision to leave my pants untucked, since having my legs just covered with Frank bites was more presentable than having all those bite marks all over my face.
This problem I never had with bedbugs, since a bedbug is not an aggressive bug, and once I tented my bed, the bedbug didn't bite until it became chemically altered by the pest control company, and learned to be aggressive for the first time. This leads me to wonder if when the squeeze was put on the environment, and suddenly there wasn't enough room in that environmental niche for two flying bugs, the more aggressive mosquito might not have driven that less aggressive bedbug out of that niche and right into our bedrooms. I would call this hypothesis ‘Niche Expulsion'.
The Subsuming of Species
To classify, include, or incorporate in a more comprehensive category or under a general principle: "The evolutionarily later always subsumes and includes the evolutionarily earlier" Frederick Turner.
contain or include; "This new system subsumes the old one"
The flying bug which was once the bedbug is now in the process of disappearing from the face of the planet. Someone might refer to that flying bug as being ‘extinct'. However that would be an insult to the flying bug since it would deprecate all the hard work and the effort that flying bug put into avoiding that very fate by going through the rigors of the process of the evolution of species for the very purpose of avoiding human caused extinction events. The flying bug is not ‘going extinct' but rather it is in the process of being subsumed by its progeny, which we now know as the bedbug.
There are other examples of species which have never gone extinct, such as the Pterodactylus. The flying dinosaurs are still with us today. They are called birds. This is something you might want to keep in mind when you hear the tweeting and singing of those subsumed Pterodactylus outside your window sill. I must be a soft touch, for I have a soft spot for subsumed Pterodactylus, placing food out for them to help those Pterodactylus make it through the cold winters. Every day I can hear the soft cooing and the tweeting and the twittering of those subsumed Pterodactylus outside my window sill. I would never think of insulting a Pterodactylus by referring to them as ‘extinct dinosaurs' just as I would never think of insulting the flying bug by referring to it as extinct when the day finally comes that what remains of the flying bug can no longer be seen crawling around the place like a bedbug.
The hectic, fast paced life of the modern bedbug
The day that the flying bug can no longer be seen crawling through my place might not be to far off in the future, and what this implies is that if people want to study that remarkable living laboratory of evolution they might not want to waste to much time getting around to it. For this is not our ancestor's bedbug, and while it might have been the case that bedbugs had to spread the newest and latest genes over the surface of the planet at the speed of a crawl, a process taking thousands of years for that crawling bug to accomplish, today's modern bedbug leads a very hectic and fast paced life style, just like the life style of the people they are biting every night.
Every hour of every day bedbugs are rocketing across continents and over oceans at faster than the speed of sound in the baggage compartment and luggage racks of passenger jets. They are speeding from town to town and from city to city riding in planes, trains, automobiles and buses carrying with them their precious cargo of the newest suite of updated bedbug genes. There are still present on the earth population lines of primitive bedbugs which have never come into contact with the new and improved bedbug genes. Everyday bedbugs are speeding from place to place around the world and each and everyday some primitive population of bedbugs are discovering what for a bedbug would be Bedbug El Dorado, the mother lode in the form of the most up to date new and improved bedbug genetic code. Just as human beings apply patches to their software, so bedbugs are busy every day updating their own biological software, applying the patches required to fix the bugs in those bugs (pun intended). Bedbugs are landing in airports and then shacking up in even five star hotels, those mixing bowls for bedbug genes, where they are swiftly swapping the new and improved bedbug code as well as the code for resistance to every pesticide known to humanity.
That hotels are excellent mixing bowls for bedbugs genes becomes evident when you consider that hotels are being sued for renting rooms with bedbugs, and when even five star hotels have bedbugs it means that they have bedbugs with this broad spectrum pesticide resistance, for if anything would work on those bugs they wouldn't be found shacking up in such luxurious accommodations. After checking out of hotels bedbugs are then riding in suit cases or in pant cuffs and heading off for Toledo, Ohio or San Francisco carrying their precious supply of completely updated genetic code to points far and wide. If those bedbugs get lucky and the clothes in those suitcases get hung up in the closet, thus sparing those bugs a fatal trip through the washer and dryer, those bedbugs will be free to update the bugs in Toledo or Omaha with those very valuable genes, bringing with them from those hotels not only the most updated version of the bedbug code but also a second brand new patch provided by the helpful humans supplying resistance to every pesticide on the planet.
The Unicorns of Science
The bedbug is just one example of what I would refer to as ‘the unicorns of science'. A unicorn is one of those non-existent creatures of myth and legend which our scientists insert into the evolutionary tree of life on earth whenever they run into more of those problems they have been uncovering which reveal the inadequacies of simple Darwinism as the theory which allegedly perfectly describes the development of all life on earth. If you consult the canonical doctrines of our science you will find it written there that the bedbug is a species millions of years old, which, evolved through the slow gradual process of countless random mutations into that bothersome thing in your bedroom, the bedbug.
Now our scientists can tell everyone anything they want about that unicorn, the randomly mutated million year old in between bedbug, and it won't make a damn bit of difference to those bedbugs, for they are bugs in a rush trying to beat an extinction event, and thus cannot waste time randomly mutating and thus are found spreading around the planet a suite of dominant genes that will finally finish the task of transforming what remains of that flying bug into a true, one hundred percent bedbug. It turns out that the process of evolving a new species of bedbug is something that only takes a matter of a few seconds, and the really slow part is that bit where the bedbug has to crawl from point A to point B and then keep crawling over the surface of the planet until finally it reaches point Z, drops off that suite of brand new genes, and then its done. This process of gene transference is not a project that would take those bedbugs millions of years to accomplish, even moving at the speed of a crawl, and given the fast paced life of the modern bedbug, it might not even take them centuries to finish the job. They could complete the evolutionary phase of the process in just a matter of decades, while some lucky bedbugs get the job done in as little as months or years as the humans keep artificially speeding up the rate of bedbug evolution by thinning out the herd with pesticides thus making that gene transferal process so much easier for those bugs by eliminating any trace of that flying bug when that residual flying bug was unlucky in the pesticide resistance draw.
Scientist have other unicorns placed in the evolutionary tree, such as that creature of myth and legend, the in between Giraffe, which rumors has it, much like the bed bug was an in between bug for millions and millions of years, so the world is full of fossils of in between Giraffes, there being so many of those things around for so long, as we would expect to be the case if there were such things as unicorns.
The evolution of the horse from the rhino and the unicorn
Since it is currently in vogue to place unicorns in the evolutionary tree, this being one of the symptoms of the corruption accompanying the decay and putrefaction of simple Darwinism, I thought that in keeping with the spirit of things I would place a Unicorn in the evolutionary tree myself, showing how the horse evolved from the rhino. I mean, why not? If scientific papers can somehow pass peer review when there is clearly a unicorn in that paper then I must assume that its anything goes these days. If someone tries to give me a problem about my unicorn, then I suppose that I could imitate our scientists and accuse my critics of exploiting our ignorance concerning unicorns, and then I could make an appeal to as yet imaginary future evidence of the existence of unicorns, and then I could go back to using unicorns while my peers review and publish my papers, even though it was obvious that instead of using the evidence at hand, I was using unicorns, because the evidence at hand was going to be a problem, thus explaining the need for all those unicorns of science.
Biased Gene Conversion and the Evolution of Bedbugs
On Natural Law - an Easter Message