The Greatest Show from Darwin 21-Comforting result

To the beginning: http://proza.ru/2022/06/26/1108

21 - Comforting results.

It's time to draw conclusions. And let's start with the positive. Evolution is a fact. Multiple examples with experiments on bacteria, guppies and lizards prove that everything in this world is changing. It would be strange if this were not the case on a planet with ever-changing conditions. I have no right to comment on the depth of evolutionary changes. This is the competence of great scientists.

Now, actually, about Darwin's theory.
There are mutations. This is also a fact! Random changes called mutations have been successfully proven by the Luria—Delbruck test, at least for some bacteria such as E.coli.

However, to assume that what is "true for E.coli is also true for the elephant" turned out to be erroneous, which was successfully shown by scientists Rudolf Barangu and Philip Horvath in their fundamental studies on the resistance to bacteriophage of strains of lactic bacteria Streptococcus thermophilus.

What is the result. There are random DNA changes and there are non-random DNA changes. And what about natural selection? For non-random changes, it is clearly not needed. Then, perhaps, at least with regard to random changes, "natural selection investigated the smallest variations daily and hourly around the world, discarding the bad ones, preserving and composing the good ones..."?
I will not repeat myself with very difficult examples of angler fish, turtles, lizards, etc. All those difficulties, no doubt, arose because of the narrow-mindedness of the author. I will not remind you of the tragic period in the history of evolution, when, with a complete abundance of food resources, predatory fish had not yet had time to be born and thus took away from natural selection the last argument for successfully "discarding the bad." Again, we will write off the incompetence of the author.

Finally, let's not dig into the amazing proof of the evolution of the eye, perfectly argued by the founder himself. Let's just say on this occasion that it is impossible to understand the habit that is very common among the popularizers of the theory, when talking about evolution, to take for example an already fully or partially formed being, diligently bypassing the moment of its formation, or even better to replace evolution with banal acceleration.
Let's just remember that scientific theory is characterized by such signs as consistency, consistency (the main provisions of the theory should not contradict each other) and reliability. Without going too deep into consistency and reliability, let's focus on logic.
What does Charles Darwin tell us in The Origin of Species? "It can be said that natural selection daily and hourly investigates the smallest variations throughout the world, discarding the bad ones, preserving and composing the good ones, working silently and imperceptibly, wherever and whenever the opportunity presents itself, on the improvement of each organic being in relation to its living conditions, organic and inorganic.

We do not notice anything in these slow changes in development until the hand of time marks the elapsed centuries, and even then our understanding of the geological past is imperfect: we only notice that modern life forms differ from those that once existed."

Without being carried away excessively by the imagery and amazing syllable of the author of the immortal lines, we will try to realize only the implied size of the "smallest variations". From the text it is clear only that the variations are small. But how much? So much so that it will not be possible to notice them in any way "until the hand of time marks the elapsed centuries."

If we assume that, on average, fifty generations fit in one century, and it will be possible to notice some changes, say, in two centuries (this is the minimum plural value of the word "century"), then a noticeable change is somewhere an order of magnitude greater than that which can occur in a single generation.
Nothing should alarm us here until the esteemed Professor Dawkins, with the naivety of a popularizer, makes an unambiguous clarification: "in any century, variations within the current population will usually be greater than variations between mothers and daughters."

What does this explain? Only that the inherited "minute variations" from mother to daughter are usually less than the variations in the current generation. Here we will not even focus on the fact that we are talking about changes over the course of a century or, as we assumed, fifty generations. It is enough that variations in one generation are more noticeable than inherited ones. That is, the range of differences between peers is more noticeable than the differences between "mothers and daughters". And, consequently, an evolutionary trait selected in one generation will again be less noticeable in the next than the usual (non-evolutionary) differences between individuals of the same species.
Someone, perhaps, will say that these are not any variations, but evolutionary ones! And, therefore, the size does not matter. Perhaps so, but not within the framework of Darwin's theory, where only one factor matters for evolution – survival. The ability to survive depends directly on the size of the advantage. The more chances a variation gives you to survive, the more valuable it is. And if a certain inherited variation, whether evolutionary or not, gives a smaller advantage than the usual difference between individuals, whether, for example, strength, agility, speed, endurance or stealth, then the chances of it in the gene pool are appropriate.

There is a small loophole in the word "usually", for which one could cling, but it only indicates that sometimes, pay attention – sometimes, inherited evolutionary variations can be comparable to non-evolutionary variations.
What does it mean? And this means a logical dead end. Long-suffering natural selection, according to the theory, should select the lesser advantage from the greater.

I will not repeat myself with attempts to somehow justify the possibility of such a choice. I will only say that with the second sign of a scientific theory – internal consistency, there was a discrepancy. And if any arguments claiming to be a scientific theory contradict themselves, then, usually, they are sent for... revision. And this is not my personal opinion, but a principle common to all theories.

However, this does not apply to Darwin's theory. Moreover, it is recognized by all progressive humanity, and encyclopedias even call it self-evident, that is, so infallible that it is a sin to even think about its rightness!

Perhaps it is, and all of the above is just unreasonable quibbles. Nevertheless, the constant attention and the amazing unanimity  suggests that the significance of Darwin's theory is somewhat deeper than what is stated in school textbooks. Perhaps the influence and emotional connection of the theory with each of us is much stronger than the sophisticated reasoning about gene pools. So much so that internal inconsistency no longer matters. In the end, meticulous researchers also find some inconsistencies in the Bible, but this has not prevented and does not prevent a large part of humanity from drawing the meaning of life from the Bible for thousands of years.

So let's put aside doubts and try to get to the very depths – not the ocean, but our subconscious. And then, perhaps, we will understand how it happened that the theory of natural selection (regardless of its scientific significance) took such an important place in scientists and, especially, in non-scientific minds.
Welcome to the upcoming study, which, as an inner voice tells me, should be called "The Gospel of Darwin."