If Charles Darwin was right, why am I bald? by Jon Searles

Home » Categories » Science & Technology » Creation & Evolution » If Charles Darwin was right, why am I bald? » Printer Friendly

	If Charles Darwin was right, why am I bald?
	No Reader Ratings Available ?	Rate It / View Comments / View All Articles submitted by Jon Searles
	Submitted Saturday, February 14, 2009
	Jon Searles ^(2,108) Jon Searles Log in to become a member of Jon Searles's Fan Club!

If you have been watching the news for the last two weeks you would have noticed the media attention given to the occasion of Charles Darwin's 200 th birthday on February 12, 2009. Charles Darwin was responsible for the research and writing of On the Origin of Species in which he theorized that species on the earth evolved through the process of natural selection. H e is also indirectly responsible for those nifty Christian fish bumper stickers with feet.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have been the opposing directions of theory and thought that involve the supernatural presence of a creator in the creation and design of the world. Evolutionist's failure to draw perfect conclusions of their theories have opened doors for the Creationist to point to the presence of omnipresent God, who obviously created the earth and universe with man in mind. True Creationists take the Bible on literal translation and try to build a timeline of existence of the world as only being about 4,000 years or so based on the appearance of Adam and Eve. Creationists point to the creation of man as a divinely created being and Evolutionists feel that man evolved from lower species, such as monkey's, over time and adaptation. Evolutionists who looked to Darwin's writings have incorporated the teachings of others over the years who feel the earth is actually 4.54 billion years old (plus or minus a few million years.)

I have always found the debate interesting. Evolution was my first area of learning since during my time in school Creationism and Intelligent Design had not yet emerged into mainstream teaching or thought. Attending lectures in college on Evolution and seminars in church on Creationism, I found myself shaking my head in agreement and understanding as very poignant, intelligent, and persuasive speakers gave me their arguments concerning the directly opposing views of scientific thought and conclusions. Although many Evolutionists do not believe Creationism is science as much as it is an unsubstantiated faith based argument. Evolutionary theorists many times feel that the feelings of "faith" in science are more correct that those that have a "faith" in God.

Ultimately, both areas of study are theories filled with hypothesis, inferences, unsubstantiated or slightly substantiated facts, arguments, and passionate beliefs that collide in the scientific community. As a Christian I find Creationism disturbing if a fellow believer needs the science to justify his or her faith in the existence of God. In a quest to understand God's plan it seems a bit arrogant of us to assume we are meant to understand everything. I accept the Bible as the Word of God and although I cannot explain in exact specificity every detail of time in the understanding of my faith as it relates to a scientific timeline, there is a Divine being.

When I was younger and briefly interested in breeding guppies for the different colors in their tails, I would impose my will upon the fish tank by only populating it with guppies with predominantly red tails to get redder results in successive generations. The ironic part was that in other fish aquariums where I put the less desirable colored tails, the guppies still bred and created even more dazzling tail color combinations that I was trying to achieve. I guess I didn't completely understand what made a guppies search for its next generational leap.

I do have fundamental arguments with Evolution since Darwin's writing used the term natural selection as a mainstay of his teaching. He proposed that "natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms , and unfavorable heritable traits become less common." (En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection ) Darwin felt that species would adapt to their environment since only the strong and attractive traits of the species would survive and thrive as time went on. Eventually, the species would evolve into the more desirable style.

I find it perplexing and am profoundly thankful that male pattern baldness is a trait that continues to thrive in humans. If natural selection were truly involved in all cases you would think that human problems such as allergies, bad knees, and bad backs would eventually disappear after 400,000 years or so. Also, do you really think the tail in our monkey ancestors would have disappeared over time? That tail, the amazing strength and agility of our primate brothers, as well as the ability to eat anything found under a rotten stump seem to be things that would be pretty useful, unless of course someone had a more Intelligent Design.

tweet this!

►Reprint Rights◄

» left by Ben Morrish ^(8,004)
Ben Morrish (266 days 5 hours ago.)

Firstly, Darwin wasn't right...not entirely anyway.

Evolutionary theory has come on a long way in the 150 years since Darwin penned On The Origin Of Species, and modern gene-centric models make it much easier to understand how even genes with negative effects for the individual that carries them can spread.

Of course, Darwin didn't know anything about genes, so it is quite impressive that he got as much right as he did.

However, traits like male pattern baldness are explicable even by the older, less refined model. A quality that gave men hair would be favoured (for the warmth and protection from the sun etc) even if that benefit was, as it often is, temporary. Better to have hair for half your life than none of it!

Evolution doesn't lead us to expect perfection...far from it! Allergies, bad knees and bad backs are all compatible with, even expected by, the evolutionary model (under which we've only been walking upright for a relatively short period, and our knees and spines are imperfectly adapted to this new posture, although overall we benefit by walking upright despite the price we pay in aches and pains).

These numerous design flaws don't really fit with the model of Intelligent Design - no truly intelligent designer would have designed us so badly!

» left by Jon Searles ^(2,108)
Jon Searles (266 days 1 hour ago.)

Ben,

I guess you put into words what I think about our imperfection. I'd hate to think that imperfect mutation is winning. We probably should have continued dragging our knuckles, if we ever did. Thanks for reading.

» left by Dianne Lehmann ^(5,194)
Dianne Lehmann (266 days 4 hours ago.)

Hi Jon.

To add to what Ben wrote, consider that the "reservoir" for the male pattern baldness gene is female humans (you inherit it usually from your mother, who normally doesn't display the baldness due to a lack of sufficient testosterone to trigger the demise of hair follicles), and you can see why that gene might stick around. If it affects less than half of the population (there are generally more females in any given population than males), then it's not that much of a problem. Besides, I don't think that baldness is unattractive.

I like to keep an open mind (not so open that I let any old crap fall in :)) about the two issues. I do have to wonder sometimes, though, about the whole "made in his image" bit. With all of our imperfections, you've got to wonder.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and a well-written article. I enjoyed reading it.

Dianne

» left by Ben Morrish ^(8,004)
Ben Morrish (266 days 3 hours ago.)

One other thing about male pattern baldness - it tends to occur after the age children would normally be sired (at least historically....nowadays we tend to reproduce later and live longer), so there'd not have been much selection pressure against it even if it lead to harmful or even fatal effects (in fact natural selection can *favour* things that kill us off later in life, as this stops us being a drain on food and resources, leaving more for our children and improving *their* chances of reproducing)

» left by Jon Searles ^(2,108)
Jon Searles (266 days 1 hour ago.)

Dianne,

Being "made in his image" is comforting but evidence does tend to show us as a poor copy. I too like to stay open minded in a way that allows me to absorb a lot of information before I give an opinion that defines what I might believe. That is the best part of being human. The concept of free will.....

Thank you.

» left by robert melaccio sr. (266 days 3 hours ago.)

Jon, an excellent article. I do a seminar about this very topic. First we must put into perspective "theory". Facts are there is more actual evidence for creation then evolution although the academic community fosters through every avenue available that there is proof. Now that creatures and man modify for their environment is not unacceptable. Yet I don't think a slab of iron will ever convert into a life form even if everything is made up of atoms. Now all one has to do is read a vitamin bottle and look at the physical composition of man. Enough said. Ashes to ashes my friend. One wonders why man tries so hard to prove they are above God? Good job.

» left by Ben Morrish ^(8,004)
Ben Morrish (266 days 3 hours ago.)

Evolution is based solely on evidence, after all, science has nothing else on which to base anything! A scientific theory that becomes incompatible with new evidence is rejected. Evolutionary theory has not been rejected, although it has been refined over the years to better fit the evidence.

As a result, evolution fits the scientific evidence much better than Creationism.

It was because Creationism didn't adequately explain the evidence he saw that Darwin, a Christian, came up with his theory.

There's nothing in evolution about putting man above God. Most people who accept evolution are religious, and they still believe God is far above us slightly brainier-than-average apes.

» left by Jon Searles ^(2,108)
Jon Searles (266 days 1 hour ago.)

Robert,

Along with the slab of iron I find it hard to believe a single cell organism water borne organism decided to take a run on the beach one day and liked it so much its decendents eventually became man. I too have issues with theories being taken as fact. Especially theories from the 1800s. Darwin was a prolific writer and had some amazing observations, but why is it all taken at face value? You may be shocked to know I take issue with some of Einstein's theories also, though no one has asked me about them.

Thank you for the comments and thank you for reading.

» left by Avis Ward ^(11,492)
Avis Ward (266 days 2 hours ago.)

Jon, very good article. I, too, find this debate interesting but have come to my own conclusion in which I do not debate. So much of what I believe I am unable to explain. I studied the Biological Sciences and found it fascinating, still do. Science and Faith (God) are not the same but I feel Faith can explain Science but not vice-versa. Hope you're having a wonderful day with your long-term Sweetheart, Jon.

» left by Jon Searles ^(2,108)
Jon Searles (266 days 1 hour ago.)

Avis,

I think our ability to realize we are "unable to explain" may be closer to the meaning of life than most people know.

My sweetheart has demanded a dinner out and watching her new copy of "Madagascar 2". She is not very high maintenance. I am blessed.

Happy Valentines Day to you and yours!

» left by Sandra E. Graham from Paragould, AR USA (262 days 21 hours ago.)

I am a Christian. I read the Bible and believe what I understand of what I read and pray for guidance or depend on my pastor for what I don't understand. I believe that we were created in God's image, but I feel we may have messed things up when Adam and Eve did what they did--who knows how that may have changed our make-up, from perfect to imperfect. I believe that He has given us the option to earn back that state of perfection through faith.

As I said, I don't understand many things but I am a firm believer in God, as our Creator, and Jesus, the son.

Very well-written and thought provoking article, Jon.

Sandra

» left by Jon Searles ^(2,108)
Jon Searles (260 days 8 hours ago.)

Sandra,

I too do not know how God did it or why, but I am glad He did! We will each, in our own time, understand more.

Thank you for reading.

» left by Matthew Beat from Lockhart, TX (227 days 13 hours ago.)

Jon,

Very interesting article, great reading. I would love to hear some of your issues with Einsteins theories.

Matt

Please Log In to Leave a Comment.


	This Article has been viewed 1,662 times. Article added to SearchWarp.com on 2/14/2009 9:02:53 AM. View other articles written by Jon Searles ^(2,108) Jon Searles

If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:

What is the story behind searchwarp?
When did you get your first real break in writing or how do you plan to get your first real break?
Pregnancy?
Charles Darwin- 200 Years of Controversy and Counting
The Spark Plug that Prayed
There Is No Such Thing As Nothing
My Theory On The Living God
What Was First The Chicken Or The Egg? Egg Argues With Chicken About Evolution
Survival Of The Fittest
The Myth That Speciation Is Evolution

Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization.