If Darwin was right...

 

Taking Darwin seriously is what many human-centric organisms employing their own kind of speciesism have been doing for some time now and much of our reality is designed according to these humanistic convictions.  Therefore please help me correct this biased scientific oversight and seriously ask what would really be the case if Darwin was right.  

What appears to be absent, even within the Biblical arguments that contributed to the debate regarding our human origins, is a purely unbiased scientific argument presented by scientists. This strictly scientific argument should demonstrate, from first principles - i.e. without assuming the end state beforehand, that Darwin's theory cannot account for the persistence of any organism that is physically and statistically less-optimal for survival, in any purely natural environment (*See notes). 

There seems to be no scientific backing for the existence of less-optimal life structures in nature that are less likely to succeed in achieving a purely mechanical, non-teleological survival. According to Darwin, "pure survival" implies that a species merely extracts energy from its environment and replicates. His theory is specific in its rejection of any other purpose or teleology, advocating pure, pitiless indifference, as one of his modern disciples might say. 

If we accept Darwin's hypothesis as correct, solely based on scientific grounds, we should not anticipate the existence of any multicellular organism - only viruses, bacteria, and those types of naturally more optimal structures that align with Darwin's theory. In fact, pure thermodynamics upholds this expectation in accordance with Darwin's theory. Multicellular and multi-organ organisms do not represent a Darwinian advancement in the survival of these already more optimal species, regardless of any known physical environment or interactions. The additional dependencies between cells and organs merely introduce unnecessary complexities to any organism. According to current scientific understanding, "pure nature" should, over time, eliminate all needless dependencies and novelties that introduce potential failure points simply by not propagating them.

Even single-celled organisms that rely on less probable or "too novel" strategies to extract energy and replicate do not constitute an improvement over the simplest and most reliable survival strategy. As such, they should not be favoured by a godless, Darwinian nature. Darwin's theory seems ill-equipped to accommodate less-optimal novelty, yet this is the very thing his theory endeavours to explain. It is puzzling why this seemingly irrational line of Darwinian reasoning is permitted to persist within the current debate about human origins.

However, we do observe in nature that these "far less adapted for survival organisms" continue to thrive. Diversity and novelty are burgeoning within our human experience**. Humans are uniquely suited for consciousness, relationships, abstract thinking, sensory observations, and cooperation with more than just other humans. Yet, astonishingly, we manage to survive within our delicate, complex bodies, especially when we compare our "survival design properties" to those of viruses and bacteria. This reality actually answers the question about what kinds of life should we expect to find should there be any Darwinian alien life out there - Only single-celled organisms, better optimised to survive any alien environment as well. Yet, here we are? Why is this the case, Mr Darwin?

It almost seems as if God initially designed and created the optimal survival organisms just to prove a point to Darwin and then progressed to those organisms with an escalating degree of novel consciousness of each other, His creation, and Himself! The conscious awareness of God appears to be the root of our survival, certainly, not any natural process like Darwin proposed. Even looking at single-celled organisms' ability to be "aware" of other things and moving around just amazes any pure "survival credulity", because, by now you must intuitively know that keeping locomotion optimised for energy conservation and not novel less optimal interactions is Darwin's only physicalist option.

P.S. Additionally, what scientists and philosophers refer to as subconscious experiences might merely be another mode of operation for our kind of consciousness, similar to sleeping. Perhaps when we sleep, we draw closer to God. It's worth contemplating how vulnerable we are during sleep, yet we persist as a species, along with all other less optimal species on the spectrum of consciousness. If survival were the only factor at play, then sleep would certainly represent a design flaw, along with all other "survival flaws." Consider that for most multi-organ, multi-cellular organisms, sleep or dormancy presents a risk. Conversely, single-celled microscopic organisms can survive for thousands of years by entering a dormant state.
(This article was proofed by ChatGPT, but none of the arguments was modified from the original text.)

*Notes:
Making an argument about multi-cellular organisms being specifically better adapted for niche environments is false if you are unbiased about what you actually mean by "better" and "niche environment" - you have to let pure nature and physics decide, not your blind biased commitments to your Darwinian hypothesis.  This is especially obvious if that so-called niche environment is made up of very purposeful novelties that will only exist if multi-cellular organisms already existed in the first place. Light sensitiveness, or any sensory interaction with the environment must be more optimal, not novel. Therefore "natural environments" are natural in the sense that they must be non-specific physical environments available for non-teleological "Darwinian life" to exist.

This obvious test for Darwin's theory was well within the capability of any 19th-century scientist - the experimental identification of the probabilistically viable outcome of "mutation and natural selection", or Darwinian-allowable organisms. The requisite experiments would merely need to determine which organisms most effectively dominate, survive, and flourish, considering physical, chemical, mechanical, and genetic/informational metrics, in any environment capable of supporting any particular life form being tested. It must be acknowledged, however, that during that era, understanding of the extreme survival capabilities and the generally optimized complexity and robustness of single-celled organisms was limited. While humans still remain naively biased about their own capabilities and mastery over nature in general, they don't seem to acknowledge their physical, chemical, mechanical, and genetic/informational inferiority.

**Not that my argument implies more optimal systems cannot be diverse, I think the single-celled ecosystem of organisms is close to optimally diverse as well.