Ron's Theory of Lazy Species
also:  Theory of Lazy Species

Written by Ron Plachno



This is a chapter from my book:  "Strategies I Learned Becoming a Vice President".  The book in total was submitted to the US Library of Congress for Copyright and was granted a copyright with an effective date of April 23, 2013.  The article itself was written solely by myself between the years 2007 and 2012 as stated in this copyrighted book chapter.  All Rights are Reserved.  However, if interested in this article positively, contact me.


CHAPTER 28: The Theory of Lazy Species

by Ron Plachno 2007-2012

The two warring sides on evolution say that the idea of Evolution and Darwin are either right or wrong, but neither side is accurate. What should be said is that current evolution theory is outdated. And that by the way, is quite normal in science. Most of the time in science the first scientific pioneer has some great ideas that start entire new waves of thinking. But then that is just a start. Since science is a learning experience, that scientist or other people may come along over the years or centuries and refine that thinking into the current best truth or theory from a science standpoint. That has not happened for evolution. Some people are trying to control it and say that it is either absolutely true or absolutely false. What that does is to stop science and learning. And then just from the passage of time - it will go obsolete, as I believe Darwin evolution has become. It has not kept pace with the other sciences or with other knowledge and logic. Am I saying Darwin was wrong? No. That is too simplistic. That would be unfair to Darwin or to any other science pioneer. It is just that Darwin as with most scientists did not have all the answers at his time.

If I were to modernize what evolution theory would match the best facts today, I would call it "Ron's Theory of Lazy Species" or simply "The Theory of Lazy Species". I will get to that at the end of this discussion. First we need to get through some myths so we can even approach this subject fairly. And by fairly here - I mean with an open mind and deal with real scientific method. First I am stating that some people are currently holding evolution hostage. Both sides will claim that the other is doing it. But perhaps both sides are guilty. Being held hostage is not new at all for science.

Science Being Held Hostage

The best thing the world could ever do to advance the quickest would be to leave scientists alone and let them use scientific method, open minds and open discussions to get to world truths as soon as we can. But it does seem to me, that many times in the past science has been controlled - for reasons of profit, power, or ideology. And in my mind, each of those is wrong. Now what I am going to say next is that those who have waylaid science have come from most walks of life: the Religious, the Atheists, World Governments and certainly also the rich or powerful. Now I am going to quickly add that I am not condemning any of those groups as a group. I firmly believe that all prejudice is not only wrong but dumb. But what is true I believe is that the bad people, the low percentage of evil people, in the past have sometimes come from at least each of those four groups. So I quickly want to get past the idea that only one group, this or that, has damaged science. All groups have been represented. Now for some examples.

It has been said by some that some representatives claiming to be from Religion have stopped science. Perhaps one of the most talked about was the galaxy itself. Some people do believe that the Church tried to stop Galileo from saying that the earth was not flat. Okay. Booo. But it is not just religion. I believe one of the current reasons for the evolution problem are some of the anti-religious. Now again, like the Religious, that group is not all bad either. As a matter of fact, I really like most atheists and love to talk to them. But some in their crowd also are in a belief that they could convince the world that Religion is a hoax want evolution to be simply believed in its current format, or anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Wrong. When either religious or the anti-religious or any other group stops science, the world suffers.

And of last we have governments. I will try my best to stay out of politics here, but let me say that at times, there is much money to be made by trying to control science. And if that happens that is wrong, just as controlling science is wrong for a religious or anti-religious bent.

Yes, yes, this would all be a better world if everyone had a respect for science and just let it run its course.


Well, first of all, I feel certain that there are many religious bigots somewhere. But among religious people that I personally know, most could not care less if evolution is true or not. Please allow me to explain why. Most people I know who do believe in God also seem to recognize that God does not get into every facet on earth. For one thing, God has never seemed to help the Chicago Cubs baseball team. But I suppose in a more serious case, many are well aware their loved ones still die. So armed with this knowledge, the feeling of most sane religious people is that evolution could be true or might not be. The reason is that God may have chosen to get involved or may have chosen to NOT get involved. So, many religious people just do not care. Right. And after 8 years of science in College and 35 or more years of science in industry, I really never saw a conflict myself between Religion and Science. For me, there isn't one. The real question is science and fact.

And yes, yes, I am sure you can find one or more religious people who say that if you believe in evolution you will go to hell. Yes, I would roll my eyes on that one also, as would most people I know, religious or not. However, note also that you can also find some anti-religious people who might say - if you do not believe in evolution the exact thing written down here next to me word for word, you will lose your job. I am hoping that most people here would roll their eyes at that one also. Both stands are very much against the search for truth that science should be.


I contend that one of the most important things any real scientist should do is to keep an open mind. And this should also be true for me. I should not be prejudiced either. So the phrases I will say to watch for are given here as a guide and do not necessarily mean that the person is anti-science. But you should watch more closely if you hear these phrases:

"Most Scientists Agree"

This is one that I truly hate the most. What it means is that either the person talking to you is clueless on the real facts of this issue, or on the other hand has so little respect for you that you do not deserve an answer with proof. Well, at times, most scientists agreed on the oddest things. Almost all great breakthroughs started with just one or two science pioneers who found something that no one had noticed before - or a different way of looking at things. So these words lead to someone wanting to stop the learning process - which is death for science.

"The Discussion is Closed"

The discussion is never closed to a real scientist. Each year we learn more. The first scientists, as I say, just have some great beginning thoughts. Those thoughts must be refined by later knowledge. For example, we admire Edison and Ford and Bell. If someone had closed the discussion on them we would be sitting in the dark with Edison's first light bulb, using a very odd telephone receiver contraption, listening to music on a gramophone with a Model T. Ford or a horse and buggy outside. No. Each of these great people had the original idea that proved wonderful. But over time science gave us newer and better and more efficient lighting systems, safer and more comfortable automobiles, and iPods with MP3s or whatnot with our cellular phones on our sides. Those that want the discussion closed must be those who want to go back to the horse and buggy. More likely, they do not understand nor can prove the logic of their own ideas and cannot explain them and therefore do not want you to have a different opinion that could challenge their "belief system".

"It's a Fact and not a theory"

Theories become facts from theories if and only if the scientists state all of the premises that they need for their idea to be true, and then conclusively prove every one of those premises. We call that scientific method. Even after that point, a true scientist must keep an open mind since new learning can make their original proofs wrong. Anyone who objects to that is not a true scientist or at least did not go to a decent ethical science school. It is honestly not so different as the admonition of a US judge who tells the jury - "You must be sure beyond the shadow of a doubt". Not so different really. That is after all, what truth is, something that at least with current knowledge cannot be disputed. Later here I will state the premises that would have to be proven true for current evolution theory to become fact. I am well aware that they cannot be proven.

"It's Definitely Scientific Fact But it Only Happened Once"

Well, most things in science can be repeated or at least occur many times. One of my favorites in this concern is the Big Bang Theory. Well, whew, at least they call it a theory and not a fact. But the odd thing about this is that it only happened once. Huh? Sounds more like a religion than science. Well, I certainly do agree that some scientists are telling us the universe is expanding which sounds something like a big bang, but I do not understand how that can happen or how something can come from nothing. So then, the nothing was really something all of the time and it was lying to us? Most equations have something on both sides, even the amazing Einstein relationship of mass and energy: E = MC2. (where the 2 is a squared sign). Now let us try gravity. Drop a pencil above your desk. It falls to the desk. Drop the pencil in the same way again. It does the same thing. Now, that is science. It repeats. Well, then if this big bang thing is real, why not when I open a drawer some days is there not a galaxy that is in there? Seems silly? Actually, I am not sure why that would be silly if this thing is real science. But also, geologists tell us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old or so. Well, happy birthday earth. That is a long time. And nowhere in that long time has another galaxy "big-banged" between the Earth and Mars or within our solar system? Most odd. I am very suspicious of anything that is called science but only happens once - especially when it is due to an equation that has only one side - with nothing on the other side.

Let me speak a bit about equations. Some are actionable and some are not. For example, let us give the example that you may wish to sell a pen for US $5.00. You could write this equation two actionable ways, and one valid way that is not actionable:

Pen = $5.00 (this is the action if you sell the pen and receive $5.00)

$5.00 = Pen (this is the action if you buy the pen for $5.00)

0 = Pen $5.00 (while this is a valid equation, it is not actionable.)

Now I do realize in this last case that someone could say that would be the case if someone bought a pen on credit. Well, the problem with that is that there is an action and more to it not shown in the equation. Pens do not just appear. Bills do not just appear. So in fairness one would have to write the above equation differently to show the missing action such as:

Buying on credit = Pen $5.00

Or Mistaken order results in = Pen $5.00

Or a neighbor who hates you results in you receiving = pizza $10.00

Since as I say, in real life, pens do not just appear or even bills or pizza without some action doing them. Likewise the issue with Big Bang theory is the missing action that is needed to explain why one side can be zero or actually and oddly begin with absolutely nothing.



While I am saying that evolution is outdated, I certainly do not want to take anything away from Darwin. Like all first scientists, he began our thinking in some great directions. But like most great scientists - just like Edison, and Ford, Bell and others - his science needed to be matured over the years based on new science knowledge. That has not happened. Let me give some examples why science needs to be a learning experience.

Asbestos - At one time, "most scientists agreed" (see the trouble this can get you into?) that asbestos was helpful to humans for fire safety. Now some here might be tempted to say that these scientists were so wrong. That would not be fair. Their decision was based on the best knowledge of the day. Asbestos did not flame and therefore it seemed logical. It was only later when science learned more that we learned that asbestos can also kill. That is why a science discussion should never be closed. We continue to learn.

Halogens in Electrical Cables - At one time "most scientists agreed" (here we go again) that putting halogens into electrical cables would help save human lives by stopping fires. Again, these scientists were not really wrong. The scientists of that time just used their best information available at that time. The original idea in fact seemed ingenious. The idea is that if Halogens were placed into electrical cables, then when there was a fire, the halogens would combine with oxygen. With reduced oxygen, this would help snuff the fire since fires need oxygen. A great idea. Seemingly. But as science advanced, they learned that yes while the above was true, there was also some traces of carcinogens - cancer causing properties. And of course, now they saw it really gave a danger. And so cables with halogens in them became outlawed in at least some countries. I believe that one of the Nordic countries was the first to outlaw halogens in cables.

Atkins - Now this one may be controversial. But I believe Atkins and his diet had some great points. But like the others, he did not get everything right. I personally believe that he was right that carbohydrates can lead to weight gain. Yes, I can see that. I also saw that for a time, that those people who were on Atkins diet lost weight well. But Atkins also seemed to say fatty foods were not bad for you. Well, like all pioneers, in my opinion, he had some things right but like other scientists, his work needed refinement. But I do believe that like many other pioneers, that Atkins deserves more credit than he has received.

As for the other scientists, even the very successful ones like we said above - Edison, Bell, Ford, and more, their first designs are not what we are using today. We are using the science refined versions of them. And so once again, saying the "discussion is closed" is quite damaging to real science advancement.


This is based on what I called conversational evolution - what people tell me should be believed by contemporary evolution thought. The point here is that for real scientific method - the premises must be stated and proved true beyond a shadow of a doubt before evolution can become true and not just a theory. Here are just some of the items I see that must be proven that are implied by evolution.


Many evolutionists seem to say that every animal somehow is related to the others. That implies this premise. This premise seems preposterous even on the surface, but I see it implied by at least some evolutionists. If you believe that there is no God, then you have to believe that life can come from non living things. Okay. That part is not my objection. My objection is the "only once" part of this. In my mind, if life can come once from non living things, why once? Why not hundreds of times? Why not millions? And if it is millions, then throw away your evolution book - since maybe nothing came from anything else. The problem here again going back to my jury analogy for scientific method proof - is there another possibility here other than life coming from non living things only once? You bet. Millions of possibilities. There can easily have been many different numbers of starts of life on the planet earth. No one knows or could ever know.


Evolutionists seem to believe that all plant and animal life only came from earth. This seems very much like "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". But again, this is not the only possibility. The Earth for example is a respected member of a solar system, which in turn is part of a Universe, and we are not even sure how big that is. Now of course, there is the extreme case that animals could have come here in space ships from other planets. While that might seem remote, it is not impossible. But even more directly, I understand that some of space dust is carbon and that might have reached the earth over our 4.5 billion year history. Life on earth is carbon based. Could carbon or DNA coming from animal life on other planets have come to earth? Well, you might say of course, but it would not be alive. Now let us return to premise number one. If you want to believe in evolution but not God in addition, then it does not matter if this carbon or DNA is alive or dead - since life can come from non living things. I for one do not see how any real scientist, or juror, could be certain that animal and plant life was not influenced by our solar system or universe. An update to all of this, is that scientists are now saying at least 100 and likely far more planets than that in the solar system are now found that can sustain life similar or at least closely similar to earth. If there is no God and life began on earth from non living things, why would not such a large amount of possible other planets also have life and perhaps have influenced our own earth by carbon space dust, or something even more serious? The possibility can logically not be excluded.


It seems that evolutionists sometimes say that these two animals seem similar and have many of the same chemicals therefore they are related and one must come from the other. No. There are other possibilities and that stops this from logically being the only possibility. One huge reason that they might look alike is "application" - they both must be able to exist on planet earth. Well, let me take two cars - a 2011 BMW and a 2011 Toyota. Both have four wheels. Both have primarily two main seating areas. Both have a steering wheel. Both have many of the same chemicals, such as water, alcohol for anti-freeze, oil and gas. So then, an evolutionist might say that one must have evolved into the other or at least come from the same factory. No. They seem very similar because they have the same "application". Both cars must be able to drive on the world highways, and be serviced by the same service stations and must have certain features for humans to buy them. The application is the same. Likewise with animals. The application - the planet earth with its foods and chemicals is really mostly one and the same application. To survive here, of course there will be some similarities. For example, we know in math that three points define a plane. However, in order to walk one foot might be in the air at times. So a very stable animal might have four legs - three that stabilize them on the ground while the fourth is in the air moving in order to provide walking. And yes, yes, while running an animal might have more than one foot off the ground as they propel themselves briefly through the air. These animals would use water since that is what seems to be around. And so on. I can certainly see a case where all animals could have separate starts but that some look the same because first of all they must survive on planet earth, and secondarily, just the mathematical odds of variations. Some swim, some walk, some crawl, and since there are some common simple possibilities, it is not hard to believe that some might in fact look alike. So being related or direct descendants is not the only logical possibility. Similar application can also cause required similarity in appearance, chemicals or internal organs.


No reason to believe that all bones would be in the ground. Even if forms of evolution did happen, basing the chain of events by what bones we do find I believe is ludicrous. It is not a given that bones will always be there, in fact it would seem most rare. And if there were to be an important "transitional" creature that gave evolutionary rise to stable ones, well, the transitional creature might not have been a stable creature itself, and therefore would be short lived and would not have reproduced long, and therefore not many bones even possible to find. In short, there is just no hard evidence to ensure all possible paths.


Before we go too far into this one, we should first of all say which science fields are easily proven and which are not. The fields that are more easily proven are the ones that do exist or can exist in the present day, and be mathematically shown on paper or demonstrated in some way as proof. The ones that are hard or impossible are the ones that existed way back in history where multiple possibilities exist that can explain the occurrence of the known facts. While current biology of current species can be proven since evidence exists today, evolution is nearly impossible to prove since it is based in history where there will be inconclusive evidence and certainly we can have no controlled experiments where there exists only one variable, or one possibility.

The easiest field to prove is often said to be math. Math is often proven using math itself. This is why some instructors refer to it as a "pure science" - easy to prove. Chemistry and Physics are mostly reasonable to prove since they can also most often be demonstrated in the current day. Chemistry has its equations and formulas that clearly can be shown to balance and thus simply be similar to a math proof. And beyond that, the actual experiment can often to be run while you wait and be shown to be true qualitatively by the components made, and measurements of their mass and mass of each part (Qualitative Chemistry, Quantitative Chemistry, Physical Chemistry). Physics is somewhat similar where gravity is easily shown, along with conservation of momentum (relied on even by pool players for bank shots), and its offshoots of Thermodynamics, Heat and Mass Transfer, Electrical Engineering and Quantum Physics. In each case there are equations which can be shown to balance, and then the actual experiment where most items, temperature, volume, pressure, voltage, current, and the like can simply be measured. Even the amazing Einstein relativity equation has been demonstrated in the Atomic Bomb or in its more peaceful form, nuclear power plants. Physics is so predictable that one of its most interesting stories was that the transistor - the building brick of our modern age - was predicted on paper before it was ever made.

But some fields that deal in History are not so fortunate as being easy to prove. One of these that I enjoy and believe the most is Geology. I would still say that it is a hard science - which might seem like humor since in many cases it discusses rock layers. But often Geologists will study rock formations and the like and look downward and can see periods of history. Now there is some possible error there, but there is at least data that can be looked at and analyzed and also presented in something of an expected "order". For example, meteors tend to leave certain minerals behind, as do volcanoes, and sometimes the Geologists believe they can also tell even the rough temperatures of the times.

So, why do I say that evolution theory and geology seem to be at odds? Well evolution theory seems to speak or imply of these smooth transitions where creatures evolve and modify into new things and isn't it a great story? Well, geologists tell us that the earth was not peaceful, and that at times likely life might have been mostly or totally killed from time to time. What are the killers they often speak of? They are at least three: ice ages, volcanoes and meteors. So if you want to know what really to worry about on this planet, I would say to worry about things that did happen in our past - such as volcanoes, meteors and ice ages. And they say that we have had 7 ice ages, and now some Russian scientists are predicting that earth may now slowly be heading into its 8th ice age. Well it seems to me that life on earth was not simply a walk in the park. I would believe that likely it started up and died a few times, and or that huge groupings of different life forms were sometimes lost in some of the earth tragedies. Some scientists now believe that perhaps a meteor landing near North America perhaps 11,000 years ago killed off the saber tooth tigers and the Wooly Mammoths of North America. Please forgive me if my timing here is off a thousand years or so.

As one example, some evolutionists tell us that birds descended from dinosaurs. Okay. But Geologists sometimes tell us that it would seem all dinosaurs died out about the same time. They seem to have theories such as a meteor, but I am not sure that they are certain. So then, putting these two things together, sudden dinosaur death and the birth of birds - it would seem to beg the question of - did birds evolve from dead dinosaurs?

Well, if evolution cannot be ever proven due to lack of evidence in history that leads to one and only one solution, then it is a theory. I am not against theories. But even a theory should keep pace with the rest of the sciences. And if not and if I am asked to choose, I choose to believe geology much more than evolution. And geology to me seems to tell me that life on earth likely had a number of starts and difficult ones not just one simple evolving group.


If I understand Darwin evolution correctly, Darwin speaks to constant mutation and changing of the species over time and then that survival of the fittest then leads to new creatures sometimes very different than the last ones. Well, there seems no real evidence of this. I understand that most animal forms existed by the Cambrian age or a similar age and have not changed much since. Those who are fond of evolution should look into if it is conforming with other known science and facts. If not, then the theory needs to be adjusted since it no longer fits reality. I understand that even Darwin himself was concerned about the Cambrian age sometimes called the Cambrian explosion and that the timing there goes against his premise of constant change. That proves that Darwin was indeed a smart man, but that we again, are not letting science evolve on his original ideas.


More than just the items above, I have often "felt" that evolution will have traits making it impossible to prove. I have recently begun to think that may be because I see it enters into an area of logic that has no definite end. I have heard a few bright people talk about the "negative set" in logic, but I can also see that it may not be a widely used term. But the way a few of us use the term is that it is often easier to prove that something did happen than to prove that it never happened. Proving that something never did happen or only happened perhaps in one way some of us call the "negative set".

Let me give an example of the "negative set", or trying to prove that something never happened. I recently found it useful to use a phrase often attributed to Mark Twain that is "Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated". It is of course a good line, and also a most humorous line at the same time. However, I then found an internet fact check operation on the internet that claimed that Mark Twain never said that. But my opinion of "their" opinion the fact check site quickly changed when I realized they were doing the impossible. They were trying to prove the "negative set". You see? Even a famous person as Mark Twain would have less than 5% of his life documented. To make claims about what happened the other 95% of the time is quite impossible. Or Mark Twain could have said this to another person and the saying attributed to him is not in Mark Twain lore, but in the written history of the other. To be blunt of course he could have said that and more. And what says that this so called fact check site actually went through all of the published information on Mark Twain, and then read it carefully word for word? No, the fact check site lost credibility with me instantly. It was on very poor logic grounds. The most the fact check site could say and still be credible is that after a bit of research, they could find no proof of it.

To understand this, let us go to a person that you know best yourself. Let us say that you are now much older and that someone is trying to decide whether or not you ever said the phrase "It will be a nice day if it does not rain out". And then that person or group publishes that you never said that. I think immediately you should be upset. There is, you would see, no way that they possibly could be so certain.

How does this affect evolution? In the biggest manner. Trying to prove that there were not many starts of life on earth or that life on earth was not influenced by our planetary system is quite similar in difficulty level as it is to prove "the negative set" and that is in fact, logically impossible.


In order to prove that the current version of evolution commonly taught is in fact reality and not a theory, each of the six premises above would have to be completely proven and also it would need to be proven that there are zero other possibilities. I know logically that it cannot be done. We cannot simply redo world history and make it an ironclad controlled experiment. And as history stands, there are just too many good possibilities in order to pick just one and to claim all others are false. Evolution is a theory at best. But the real travesty is that since added science knowledge is not allowed to be added to it, it is slipping out of date and so far as to be crazy - at least to some of us. Let the scientists go and work on getting evolution updated to match the world science we know today.

And next... my opinion of what real evolution truly is - that does follow known history at least better. I call it:


Similarity to Darwin

I do not hate Darwin or think he was a bad person at all. I just believe that the first person into any science gets some great ideas right and some ideas wrong. And the right answer for science is not to stop discussion - but instead to allow new science learning to refine the field into something that is at least a theory in harmony with known facts.

What I do agree with Darwin is:


Yes, I agree with this part of Darwin. We can see this in our own world. As the world modernizes and the face of the earth changes, some species cannot cope and die off. Yes. I would also add that trying to stop it is mostly a waste of money. I believe that this part of Darwin's findings are reality. Some species will always be dying off since they can no longer cope, and new ones may be arriving, that we have not even have noticed yet.

I have two examples of this and both are dog stories. First the difference between dogs and wolves. While there seem some very real physical similarities the obvious difference is that dogs have become dependent on humans and actually seem to study and know a lot about humans while wolves could care less - unless it is dinner time and they might want to eat the humans. I understand that Russians in Siberia ran a test where they took wolves and over time, trained them to be with humans. After some long period of time they became like dogs. No, I did not check this story out totally. The reason I did not is that I simply believe it. Both animals and humans are quite adaptable and may change in order to survive.

Another dog story, though this one has not happened to my knowledge. I do believe it would however. If the earth were to grow colder I would imagine at some point that some humans would notice that dogs have thicker fur. So they might say that the dog fur evolved. Well, I would say yes and no to that. I have no dispute that dogs would have thicker fur - the question is how it happened. I believe what would happen is that dogs with thicker fur would thrive in the new cold but dogs with thinner fur would not, would breed less, and die off earlier. And so over time, by natural selection (sounds like Darwin) the dogs with the thicker coats would prevail and breed. So that is how I think dogs would seem to have thicker coats.


The continuous mutation portion of evolution and then its associated natural selection I disagree with. There is no real evidence of that. There are at least a million ways all of the species we know could have arrived on earth. Choosing one and calling it fact is not good science, but very bad science.

Now I do agree that humans and animals can change in order to cope and survive in an ever changing world. This next part is where I disagree with Darwin: In my case I do not believe it is constant. it is only WHEN THEY HAVE TO in order to survive. That is why I call my theory - the Theory of Lazy Species. I do not believe species are always changing. They only do so until their species can survive well on earth. Then they stop. This is in fact what the earth has seen. Animals and other species changed up until some point (the Cambrian age) but did not change much since. My point would be - why would they? So my thinking is somewhat along the lines of that line in the movie "Jurassic Park" where one scientists remarks - nature will find a way. Yes, nature will find a way if it has to. But if it is fine, it is okay for monkeys to continue to eat bananas and swing in trees.


In my theory humans would never descend from apes, nor would apes descend from humans. The reason in both cases is the same. Why bother? As soon as a species is stable on earth by my theory, it stops changing. There is no need for change. And even today, both humans and all kinds of monkeys, baboons, gorillas and the like are fairly stable earth life forms. There is no need for change. So then, what happened?

Well, as I say - animal and human species occurred long ago and left very little proof one way or the other. Monkeys and Humans could have had separate starts and their similarities could easily be chance as each adapted to earth. If you had a billion separate life starts on earth, of course you would always find two that are the closest. But logically, that in no way proves that either one came from the other. Or if evolution does work in any manner at all, both could have descended from the same ancestor - an unstable one that is no longer alive today. Had they both descended from a third species - an unstable ancestor, then there would be incentive for all those species to get to something stable. Some might become stable monkeys and some might become stable humans. And the incentive for that to happen is that if they stayed like that third unstable species they would die and not be capable of living on earth. And since that third species was unstable, it would not have a long earth history and therefore likely would not leave many bones in the ground to find.

Now you see? I did not give a clear answer here since evidence is lacking. But my idea fits with world history far better than the current version of evolution. I say, species only change when they must, and for the time being most earth species are stable so thank you very much, just get out of their way. They will not mutate as Darwin incorrectly said. There is no reason. Perhaps nature will find a way - if it needs to. But if there is no need, then nature can simply .. be lazy. As I said. This is my Theory of Lazy Species. And I do believe its logic fits the world facts much finer than evolution.


Well there are some things my theory will not even try to guess at - such as how many times did living things come from non living things. I do not believe it was just one. Based on the most difficult world the Geologists say that the earth had, my belief would be that many species began trying to make it, but then were instead wiped out by meteors, volcanoes and ice ages. One would have to take the time to look at what we do know with the geology data and the life form data that we have, and try and figure out what ages some species were alive and when they went away. That is beyond the scope of this article. But I think that would be time wiser spent by evolutionists rather than trying to continue to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.

Ronald J. Plachno

Back To Articles

Back to Main Index for Ron Plachno Site