The Greatest Show from Darwin to Dawkins

There is hardly another theory that has caused such a powerful revolution in the minds and so many ongoing disputes as Darwin's theory.

To my shame, I must admit that my acquaintance with evolutionary theory was limited to a high school course. Biology has never been one of my favorite subjects, so there is not much left in my memory from the entire course. Perhaps, a vague feeling of awkwardness for the pistils and stamens...

The evidence base of the theory was fixed in consciousness only by the statement about many millions of years of evolution and the presence of such rudimentary organs as the appendix and coccyx, inherited from our ancestors.

The statement about millions of years sounds weighty, so it has never been in doubt. But there is clearly something wrong with the appendix and coccyx.
Judge for yourself. The appendix, despite being called a rudimentary organ, is an important component of the human immune and endocrine system. It is known to be removed only in case of inflammation. The most advanced inhabitants of the planet, living, as you know, in the North American states, at one time took care of this problem.

These advanced Americans were so imbued with confidence in the uselessness of the appendix that they set out to help evolution by demanding that this vestige be removed from their newborn children. Surgeons did not contradict them (they also went to school and knew what was what). But it is unlikely that the operated children were grateful to them for such care, because, having lost their appendix, they lost the ability to digest mother's milk, were more often ill with infectious diseases, and suffered from dysbiosis after each intestinal infection. In addition, they seriously lagged behind their peers in mental and physical development.

I have never heard about the removal of the coccyx. In all encyclopedias, immediately after declaring it a rudiment or in a milder form, "the lower spine, consisting of three to five fused rudimentary vertebrae," there is a long list of its functions. So, they write: despite the rudimentary nature, the coccyx has a rather important functional significance.

Firstly, it serves to attach muscles and ligaments involved in the functioning of the organs of the genitourinary system. Secondly, a part of the muscle bundles, which are a powerful hip extensor, is attached to the coccyx. Thirdly, the coccyx plays a role in the distribution of physical activity, serving as an important fulcrum - it is transferred part of the load when bending backwards. And, fourthly, it plays a crucial role in childbirth.

Any injury to the coccyx brings a person great suffering, but no surgeon would even think of removing this "lost its main meaning" organ to relieve the patient's torment.

What could these organs mean so important to our ancestors if they became rudimentary for us? And what could be more important than immunity (especially in infancy) and the very possibility of being born?

I hastened to share these and some other doubts with experts in the theory of evolution, which, it seems, are all its adherents.
Communication with them inclined me to the idea that I am the last person on planet Earth who believes in evolution. Everyone else does not believe, but knows! This knowledge is so deep and comprehensive that there is no room for doubt in it. At the same time, naturally, they feel sorry for people like me, and in a fit of compassion they are classified as obscurantists.

Agree, what a cruel paradox. Throughout his adult life, Darwin created a theory that was designed to abandon faith in favor of a scientific understanding of the world. Instead, there are still people who have just changed one faith to another.

What an insult to the memory of a great scientist!
Is it really possible to treat the legacy of the founder of the fundamental theory so unscrupulously? How can a normal person accept such a state of affairs?

Perhaps too presumptuous, but I still consider myself to be more or less normal people. And so there was nothing left for me but to force myself to penetrate at least a little into the depths of the great plan and then accept everything unconditionally and forget... about doubts.

It would seem that what could be easier. The book of the graduate of Christ's College, Cambridge University, C. R. Darwin "The origin of species by natural selection, or the preservation of favorable breeds in the struggle for life" contains hundreds of pages and has a huge attractive force. This force strangely affects my eyelids in a narrow way, which makes it very difficult to advance into the depths of the theory.

In order to somehow cheer up and diversify the sources of information, I go online, where I find a curious quote: "Let's assume that the eye, with its most complex systems - changing focus to different distances, capturing different amounts of light, correcting spherical and chromatic aberrations - such a complex mechanism was formed as a result of natural selection. Frankly speaking, this idea seems to me completely absurd." And this quote is attributed not to anyone, but to Charles Robert Darwin himself.

My heart is filled with warmth. How understandable and touching it is! A naturalist not yet recognized by anyone is working on a revolutionary guess. Breaking through the darkness, he does not perceive himself as the ultimate truth. He doubts! But doubt is what distinguishes the inquisitive mind of the researcher, what pushes him to new great discoveries.
Touched, I rush to share this finding. The Internet responds, calming my worries with intelligible explanations of experts in theory (who know everything and do not doubt anything).

Here, it turns out, is what Darwin actually wrote: "The assumption that the eye, with its most complex systems - changing focus to different distances, capturing different amounts of light, correcting spherical and chromatic aberrations-can be formed as a result of natural selection-may seem, as I can easily imagine, largely absurd. Nevertheless, reason tells me: "if it is possible to show the existence of numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to a complex and perfect eye, and each step is useful for its owner, and this is beyond doubt; if, further, the eye has ever varied and variations have been inherited, and this is just as certain; if, finally, such variations could be useful to an animal with changes in the conditions of its life — in this case, the difficulty that arises when thinking about the formation of a complex and perfect eye by natural selection, although insurmountable to our imagination, cannot be recognized as refuting the whole theory."

"Beyond doubt", "undoubtedly" and only "may seem... absurd". Only this way and no other way! In conclusion, my omniscient opponent reports: "In general, the statement that C.R. Darwin was "disappointed" or "even renounced" his views is a myth and a rather ridiculous legend."

This incident suddenly gave me this idea. Darwin created his theory more than a hundred and fifty years ago. During this time, scientific thought has stepped far ahead. Such a long period of time should have given us a colossal evidentiary material. Digging only into the primary source, I will miss all these achievements of science and as a result I can form a wrong idea about the state of evolutionary theory today.

Very incidentally, from the depths of the Internet came a good advice to get acquainted with the book by Clinton Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence of Evolution" (2009), with this parting words: "Dawkins just for you gives a definition of the scientific method of analysis ..., as well as a brief overview of the factual material and its interpretation in terms of explaining the mechanisms of speciation. He also answers questions very similar to yours quite patiently and concretely."

In general, this book is written in plain English and is addressed to non-scientists like me.
Of course, Dockins is not Darwin, but still an evolutionary biologist, scientist, professor at Oxford University, albeit retired, again an atheist, a bright critic of creationism and a popularizer of the theory of evolution. His books have been published in millions of copies and translated into many languages, including Russian. So, there is no reason to doubt his competence, especially to suspect sympathy for creationism.

It is believed that the more sources, the higher the objectivity. I do not argue, but you can inadvertently come across some difficult argument. Then mess with it. And in a book designed to popularize the theory, examples should be collected that perfectly illustrate it.
To save even more time and effort, I set myself a special condition. As soon as we find the first evidence-based example that does not contradict the theory of evolution itself and just common sense, we immediately discard any doubts with a clear conscience.

Our century is the age of speed, information boom, flashing pictures, switched channels, posts on social networks, cats on YouTube, a stream of unsubstantiated statements and other information noise. We are in a hurry; we have no time to do something like studying hundreds of pros and cons. So, this decision is quite in the spirit of the times. One "for" and the matter is in the hat. There is no second and especially no third proof, no matter how fascinating it may be.
There's no time!

And so that I would not suddenly be tempted to abandon a word thrown in a fever, I invite the reader to this short journey as a strict witness*.

* - I apologize for my English. I would be grateful for the corrections.

Next: http://proza.ru/2022/06/27/816