Ideation International's web site features an article by Boris Zlotin and Alla Zusman (a.k.a. "90% of all TRIZ scientists") titled "A Natural Brain for Intelligent Design". Despite being claimed to contain a new scientific concept for biological evolution, the article in fact attests to the profound ignorance of these "scientists".
For example, without a shadow of a doubt, they allege the existence of the following paradoxes (or enigmas, as they call them) in the Darwinian concept of evolution:
Cephalization (from the Greek word kephal, meaning "head") refers to the evolutionary trend of mental and psychological capabilities evidenced by the ratio of brain mass to body mass. It seems logical that with the growth of cephalization the "pressure" of natural selection should become less, because a more psychologically developed organism can compensate for negative impacts from the environment through behavioral changes and adaptation. For example, unusually cold weather can kill heat-loving fish, while foxes and monkeys learn to avoid cold by hiding in ground holes, creating shelters from dead leaves, and so on. The development of mental capabilities should help animals survive because it provides for better caring of the brood, gathering in flocks, the sharing responsibilities, etc., lowering the pressure of natural selection. This means that the growth in brain mass should slow the organism's evolution -- however, paleontological research reveals the opposite: evolution speeds up with cephalization. There is no satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon.
Here Zlotin confused "the pressure of natural selection" with "the impact/pressure from the environment" (such as cold weather, etc). It is true that cephalization entails better adaptability to the natural environment. But it also entails emergence of more sophisticated predators which threaten species even more than cold weather. Cephalization makes the world more dangerous. That is why species continue to evolve at ever increasing pace in order to outsmart the ever smarter/lethal dangers.
Besides, cephalization is just a sign of the growing complexity of species. The more complex a species is, the more slight modifications may happen in it. This is another factor of accelerating of evolution when complexity of species increases.
Estimations of the probability of the appearance of certain biological features proves that relatively few generations and a limited number of species (i.e., a relatively small number of variants to explore) make complex biological organisms unlikely to appear under the conditions of haphazard mutation and selection. There have been several moderately satisfactory attempts to explain this phenomena, but no general agreement exists.
The probability of the appearance of biological features is impossible to calculate without adopting some hypotheses and making simplifying assumptions. Depending on hypotheses and simplifications adopted, people receive different estimates of this probability. Zlotin probably refers to estimates based on religious assumptions made by the adherents of Intelligent Design.
The selection theory does not adequately explain the evolution of features (organs) that are not functional in infancy yet continue to evolve (e.g., the electric organs of the electric ray). Nor does it explain the development of advanced features before the need has arisen (seams in the skulls of mammals, for example), or of features that are useful for the entire species but harmful for an individual specimen (such as the rattle of a rattlesnake).
Darwin never claimed that all new features (organs) that appear in the course of evolution have to be functional. They only have to have positive or neutral impact on the species in order not to decrease its survivability. Non functioning features (organs) that Zlotin mentioned, must have had neutral impact on the species. That is why natural selection did not kill them.
Zlotin sees paradox in that organ does not function but continues to evolve. So what that it does not function ? Does not it get changed by mutations then ? Yes, it does. Mutations drive its evolution and may make it functioning at some point in time.
Biological evolution asserts that its main purpose is to ensure the survival of the species rather than the individual. If this is so, it seems preposterously excessive to have an organ as powerful as the human brain or nervous system for the exclusive purpose of individual survival.
Only such self-enamoured and vainglorious people as Zlotin use their brains for their individual survival only. The brains of other peoples work on survival/advancing of the mankind.
To explain the reasons for the development of useful mutations, several hypotheses for the natural inventiveness of live organisms have been offered. The first referred to "embryo inventiveness"; as biology evolved, inventiveness was attributed to cells, genes, molecules, and so on. In effect, the responsibility for biological invention has been moving deeper and deeper to the micro-level. But where does it end ?
Analyzing the theory of biological evolution in light of TRIZ has led to an interesting conclusion: similar to the way TRIZ has evolved, the "battle line" in bio-evolution lies in the evaluation of the role of trial-and-error -- that is, the haphazard exploration of variants.
As mentioned earlier, the Synthetic Theory of Evolution (STE) holds that bio-evolution is a result of haphazard mutations (the exploration of variants). However, a number of noted biologists-evolutionists, among them L. S. Berg and A. A. Lubischtev, disagree with this theory. In its place they offer models of evolution based on the assumption that patterns of biological evolution exist (Berg's nomogenesis theory) or that one or more end-seeking factors are responsible for guiding evolution in a desirable direction (finalist theories of evolution). In the finalist theories the candidates for the role of this factor are wide-ranging: from God to "programmed evolution." Yet these models are not free of problems, either. If purposeful evolution exits, why is it so slow? And why does it allow so many failures such as dead ends, the elimination of an entire species, etc.? The war between STE apologists and nomogenesists has been going on for some time, exposing considerable differences between the theories.
Too many words to create an illusion of a paradox where there is none. Darwinists claim that all known species came into being through random mutations and natural selection. Other evolutionists disagree and talk about "purposeful evolution". If they are right, - Zlotin wonders, - then why is "purposeful evolution" so slow "and why does it allow so many failures" ?
My answer is: WHY NOT ??? He is probably disappointed by coming into this world so late and by sheer luck!