One problem with the Darwinian model of evolution is that it seems to imply greater-than-possible intelligence in life forms (or else in the unconscious subunits of same).
Have a look at this copy from Phys.org:
In the desert along the Arizona/New Mexico border, the scientists observed mating between two species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants that are known to hybridize. The queens of one species will happily mate with males of another species. But these queens have a trick in their antly boudoir: they only use this sperm from the other species to produce sterile worker ants that they need to build their colonies.
This, you might imagine, isn’t what the male ants are hoping will happen with their precious seed. Sure, these males will produce lots of daughters via this queen, but these daughters will be sterile and “so they’ll have no grandchildren,” says Sara Helms Cahan, a biologist at UVM who co-led the study with her graduate student and lead author Michael Herrmann.
Do we have a reason for believing that these male ants could know or care? If not, then who or what exactly does?
Sterile offspring are directly contrary to the males’ long-term evolutionary interest in passing on their genes.
What long-term evolutionary interest in passing on their genes?
What difference does it make to the insects if their line goes extinct?
Then it gets clever:
Then—perhaps a bit like other dawnings of awareness among males of a well-known species in the middle of the sex act—the male ants figure out they’ve made a big mistake. Realizing that they have mated with the wrong species, they get clever, and reduce the rate at which they transfer their sperm into these crosstown queens. “They can mate again,” Helms Cahan explains, “so this would preserve their sperm for investment into better mating.”
Dawkins claims to have discerned a selfish gene that does all the thinking and caring via natural selection acting on random mutations.
Presumably all the randomness can create not only information in the mathematical sense but also a personal life strategy for insects. But, come to think of it, the same people believe that about humans too, don’t they?
The curious thing is that anthropomorphism (that’s what this is called; it means assuming that animals/insects think like people) used to be regarded as a sign of primitive thinking. Now it’s Darwinian evolution and therefore science, by definition.
No wonder even Nature, is becoming more more open to dissent.
The question of whether randomness can create bewilderingly complex information in a comparatively short period of time will probably gain traction because, unlike this stuff, it is subject to testing.
See also: Evolution driven by laws? Not random mutations? (If an establishment figure can safely write this kind of thing, Darwin’s theory is coming under more serious fire than ever.)
Follow UD News at Twitter!