Darwinism has hit a serious obstacle in its attempt to explain
adaptations in a more sophisticated way. Survival is a conscious act,
and ignoring that fact in favor of materialism is a dead end. It's
quite self-contradictory for current evolutionary biologists to speak
of adaptations that benefit the genes of a species without elucidating
how a gene can know anything about the outside world. How do the genes
of a queen bee, for example, absorb the information about what's
happening to worker bees without some resort of intelligence?
Moreover, crude notions of competition and survival of the fittest are
grossly inadequate. The entire field of ecology is based on
cooperation, symbiosis, and holistic forces that shape life on this
planet. The deeper questions are these:
--How does competition fit in with its opposite, cooperation?
--How can mutations really be random given that complex adaptations such as flight require multiple adaptations simultaneously?
--How can we explain adaptations that don't benefit mating preferences?
The honey bee is a perfect example. Worker bees take no part in mating,
and it's ludicrous to think that drones prefer queens whose genes
produce worker bees that die after they sting?
--How can we explain adaptations that only come into effect after
mating, such as the differing life spans of creatures after they breed?
By what criteria, for example, does Nature choose for one insect to
live ninety days instead of one day?
--How can we explain the rise of consciousness out of unconscious molecules?