Natural
Selection Or "Survival of the Fittest"
As Considered By Charles Darwin
by the Doubting Thomas
July 23, 1999
Rev. 1/28/2000
Preamble
Note that no Creationist ideas are contained in the article. It deals
strictly with the science of evolution. The ideas and arguments made on this page are
unambiguous, falsifiable, and can be refuted point by point, if such arguments exist. This
statement is made as a prelude to the suggestions made directly below.
Students:
Parents:
School Board Members:
State Education Officials:
Ask your professors/teachers/education officials/book suppliers to explain the detailed
contradictions with accepted evolutionary theory which are presented in this article. If
they cannot, ask them why they are not presenting similar arguments in their
sylabuses/textbooks.
SYNOPSIS
This page explores what might be called the most fundamental belief in all of biological
science, namely, whether or not the concepts contained in the terms "Natural
Selection" and/or "Survival of the Fittest" are, either separately or
together, a scientific explanation for evolution. These two terms have been chosen for
discussion not only because they launched "Darwinism" to the preeminent theory
it has become, but also because of the almost universal use of them and all their
derivatives, in biology books and particularly textbooks.
Both of these terms are used almost interchangeably as the foundation of Darwin's theory
of evolution, and have been, from the original publication in 1859, through to the present
day.
While no argument is made of the status of "evolution" it is assumed throughout
this paper that evolution is not a proven fact, contrary to another fundamental
belief of evolutionists; however, the possibility of some sort of evolution is not ruled
out either,
the question being not germane to this discussion. If you are of the opinion that
evolution is a proven fact, this entire topic has to be considered as erroneous.
While a little off-topic to the overall discussion, a paragraph near the end
explains how the Malthusian theory really fits into the idea of evolution.
In a closing paragraph, predictions made using Darwin's theory are proposed and studied
in attempt to test the theory.
CONCLUSION
It is shown that the process of reason that concludes that Natural Selection is a proper
explanation is faulty, in actuality a process which is properly called "inverse
logic". It is also shown that the term Survival of the Fittest, even if
not a tautology (by some
stretch of the imagination) is not a meaningful explanation for evolution, since the
organisms that survive are not in fact, the "fittest" by any standard. Thus,
there is as
yet, no scientific explanation for the phenomenon known as "evolution",
and Darwin's theory explains only simple adaptation to a variety of extant
conditions, as opposed to
the nearly universal claim that it explains the "cause" of evolution. The
scientific cause
of evolution, if it even exists, is currently (1999) unknown to science. His theory is in
fact a prescription for mono-specificity, and cannot explain the diversity so evident in
the biological world.
It is also suggested that the rote learning of evolutionary theory may be harmful to the
development of the formation of the logical process of thought, particularly in the young.
Likewise it is concluded that the "Malthusian" concept is responsible for stasis
rather than playing any part in "evolution" - just another example of the
inverse logic of the Darwinists.
In closing, several predictions made on the basis of the theory have, fortunately, not
come true.
PREMISES AND DEFINITIONS
There is little point in proceeding in this discussion w/o defining terms, meanings,
suppositions and all other aspects of the thesis. Far too much of the discussion of this
topic is carried out in an attempt to prove/disprove various aspects of what is
generally called "Darwin's Theory", and because of a failure of the above,
nothing meaningful is accomplished. Thus the following meanings are established: (1)
(see below)
ARGUMENT NATURAL
SELECTION
Historical Background
Darwin's feelings about Natural Selection and evolution
Charles Darwin felt strongly that observations made on large scale explorations such as
his voyage on the Beagle showed conclusively that many clearly different organisms,
animals as well as plants, were related to one another by some as yet unknown law. In
other words, evolution existed. This belief differed with the then current Biblical based
system in that these differences were a result of deliberate Creation as described in the
Bible. Darwin understood this as did many others, and after years of study he proposed
as an analogy for the operation of evolution, the well known method of "Artificial
Selection" whereby characteristics of living organisms can be selected by breeders to
produce altered characteristics of a species. In his proposal, the action of
"natural" processes takes over as the "intelligence" formerly
attributed to the Creator and now
does the "selection". His now famous book "On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" published first
in 1859, outlined how a purely natural process of selection could produce similar effects,
and thus explain the development of new species without reference to supernatural
intervention.
The meaning of Natural Selection as originally used by Darwin
As kind of an aside, in the book "Origins", Darwin used a strange, rather
disingenuous method of introducing the term Natural Selection to the reader. It is labeled
disingenuous because it is a technique used often by mystery writers to enhance the
suspense connected with the effort, and the last place it should be used is in an essay on
a scientific subject. He takes you through a full three chapters of the book, hinting at a
definition based solely on the effects of the as yet unexplained process, all the while
lauding the properties of Natural Selection, suggesting a scenario which
virtually guarantees that the definition, once it is made, will be accepted. Then, in
chapter four,
he defines what has been called "the most important concept in biology" in a
mere 27 words:
"This preservation of favourable individual
differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have
called Natural Selection, (adding in a later edition) or the Survival of the
Fittest."
Note that the process he describes is identical to the
process used in "artificial selection", where the selector destroys those
individuals which carry an injurious trait. Once again, the definition of Natural
Selection is based on the effects of it, and the mechanism or cause is not
stated. (What, exactly, does the selection?) Any reasonably suspicious
person should be skeptical at this point, if not by the brevity of the explanation, by the
simplicity of same and the fact that it was well known to all biologists. Darwin's
explanation says in effect, 'species have changed, and the only plausible explanation for
it is that they have been "selected", therefore they have been "naturally
selected" '
- which conclusion is another excellent example of his ability of "circular
reasoning".
In contrast to the reception of the scientific community as it is usually reported, Darwin
was severally criticized by his peers for his use of the term. This criticism was
sufficient
to cause Darwin to first defend it as an "apocryphal" description and later to
essentially abandon the term.
But Darwin meant something by the term, and the acceptance of it by the biological
community of long standing shows that it conveys some kind of meaning as an explanation
for a process that is otherwise not understood. So various aspects of the term will be
examined below to determine, if nothing else, the perceived meaning. But the story is not
complete here. Darwin himself had some misgivings, and these should be identified.
Darwin's backpedalling on Natural Selection
Darwin's book went through 6 editions in about a dozen years, and he had abandoned the
term Natural Selection (but not the concept) after the fourth edition. In his own words,
the term "Survival of the Fittest"
"is more accurate and is sometimes
equally convenient."
(em. added)
For those who find this difficult to believe, he went even
further and stated in regard to sporting varieties of plants (which concept would apply as
well to all living organisms) that
"...we clearly see that the nature of the conditions
is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in
determining each particular form of variation;- perhaps of not more importance than the
nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in
determining the nature of the flames." (em. added) , (which is absolutely none),
thus for all practical purposes abandoning the original
concept of Natural Selection. Nonetheless, in spite of this turnabout in Darwin's
feelings, the term is used routinely throughout the field of biology and appears in
virtually every textbook as an explanation for the cause if evolution. Thus further
discussion is necessary.
Some fallacies of Natural Selection - The concept
of Natural Selection as an extension of artificial selection.
On the surface, the comparison is plausible, and was likely more so in Darwin's time, when
nothing was known about genetics or cell biology. In our current state of knowledge
however, it should be understood that the characteristics which can be so easily
manipulated by artificial selection are simply what could be called "existing
traits"
- alleles - of an organism, and there is agreement that no new genetic material is
produced by this process. Likewise, selection by an intelligent being is done with a
particular outcome as a goal; judgment, experience and corrections are made in the
process. "Natural" selection is in reality a response to an "effect",
the only "choice" possible being a preprogrammed response of an organism. It was
termed "selection" solely in an attempt to rationalize the idea of an
intelligent act. No goal or purpose is possible. There is no connection between the two
mechanisms (assuming of course that Natural Selection exists in any form).
The "post hoc propter hoc" aspect of Natural
Selection and evolution
The belief in evolution itself, even without an explanation for the "law" or
"mechanism" which explains it, is here termed a "post hoc propter hoc"
belief (literally after this [therefore] because of
this - a logical fallacy) for three reasons:
- first, the reality of living organisms requires an
explanation.
- secondly, the appearance of similarity between many organisms
in the plant/animal kingdom is widespread and, at least superficially, easily
recognizable. An inference of relationship is thus created.
- thirdly, but of far more importance, the scientific adherence
to a closed belief system (which is here termed the Five Senses Hypothesis)(2)
eliminates any other explanation for the similarity other than "evolution".
The often heard argument (which is common in email replies
also) is "but Darwin's theory
is all we've got". Yes, its all you've got if you accept the above premises. Once
they are accepted, the argument about evolution, per se, is over. Evolution has to be a
fact. Following, if evolution exists, then the only explanation for it is that Natural
Selection, somehow, exists also. Thus, the entire argument is of the type called
"post hoc propter hoc" - evolution is the explanation for the existence of life.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this type of argument, as long as supporting
evidence can be brought to corroborate the premises. As is increasingly being shown
particularly in the field of microbiology, supporting evidence is lacking, e.g. - physical
resemblance is deceptive - the "Five senses Hypothesis" is simply a
philosophical belief - and in fact there is much evidence to suggest that belief in
Natural Selection causes more problems than it solves.
An in-depth look at the concept of Natural Selection, never carried out in the immense
literature on the subject, shows as below, that the concept of Natural Selection is
completely fatuous in the sense that it self-deceiving.
The real meaning of Natural Selection
Since there are thousands of books written on the subject of evolution and many of them
have a proprietary definition of Natural Selection, the concept will be discussed as
defined below. Thus, in the process of increasing complexity of organisms, whatever factor
that makes the choice for success in the trial and error process is what has
"directed" the development of the organism. This was Darwin's original concept
(Natural Selection), as above, which was abandoned by him, but this very same concept
nonetheless is still used today as a rational explanation for evolution. But the concept
is nothing but an erroneous technique of logic sometimes called "inverse
reasoning" which mistakes cause for effect and thus "explains" the exact
reverse of what is happening. Ironically, Darwin's compatriot Alfred Wallace understood
this process very well, and his description of it is one of the best and most succinct
available. Wallace stated:
"We are like children [who are] looking at a
complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them
we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to
explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand." (em.,
[brackets], added)
(unidentified "Species Notebook", p 43.) Probably
1854-55. From H. Lewis McKinney's Book "Wallace and Natural Selection"
This process as described by Wallace is by no means unique to
the field of science. Many of the "great" discoveries of the past were based on
it, not the least of which was the Ptolemaic view of the universe. This view was driven of
course, by the belief that Man
was created to be the center of the universe, and the tortured reasoning which was
developed to explain it is very close to the exact opposite of the truth. But one does not
have to look back hundreds of years for examples of the phenomenon, because it is a
very common part of our daily colloquial existence. Many of the more common
explanations of things which are not easily explained are made simpler or more
meaningful by use of this technique. A few examples follow:
- Slums are the cause of poverty.
- Guns are the cause of crime.
- My car won't start in the rain.
All three of these statements are based on a failure to
understand the real cause of a problem, and consequently attribute an easily
understandable effect as the perceived cause. Unfortunately, society is full
of them. (It is not inconceivable that the reason for this is perhaps somehow connected
with the early learning of such things as Darwin's theory with its very loose, erroneous,
and inverse relationship between cause and effect).
The original Darwinian belief that something in the "conditions of life" was the
explanation for selection falls squarely into the middle of Wallace's explanation, as
quoted above. Adopting this technique scientists, biologists, atheists and agnostics, long
hungering for
a natural explanation for apparent intelligent design, at last have an explanation for the
process. Best of all, it seems, for one reason or another, to be eminently compatible with
the human psyche.
But a detailed, disciplined, look at Natural Selection will
show that the concept cannot be the cause of any direction of development; rather Natural
Selection is only an effect which can be available for the continuing existence of a
organism which is able to use the effects. This is equally true even in the case of
predation as in Kettlewell's experiment (below), where the effect is camouflage. The
ability to use these effects and more importantly to sustain a direction of development
such as the eye, immune system, or the complexity or the eukaryotic cell, for millions of
years, is a property of a developing genome, not a property of the "conditions of
life". Darwin's second assessment, as above, requoted here, is correct:
"...we clearly see that the nature of the conditions
is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in
determining each particular form of variation;- perhaps of not more importance than the
nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining
the nature of the flames." (em. added) {which is none - DT}
Those who believe in Darwinian evolution as currently taught
in biology have accepted a cause/effect reversal as a simplistic explanation of a
phenomenon which has not yet
been discovered by science. Those who wish to supply a plausible explanation for the
process must produce evidence for the continuing million/billion year increase in
complexity by showing a mechanism which will supply a sustained direction of development.
It ought to be noted that this very process has been considered by at
least one microbiologist, the author Michael Denton, in his new book "Nature's
Destiny".
Assuming at this point the reader might agree with the above argument concerning
Natural Selection, and yet still be convinced that evolution exists as outlined by
Darwin's theory, further discussion is in order. Is it not possible that Darwin's
preferred explanation for complexity, Survival of the Fittest, is really the explanation
of the process? In fact it will be shown (in the Survival of the Fittest section) that the
concept is erroneous as
well, but for a wholly different reason.
The Detailed Operation of Natural Selection; Kettlewell's
Experiment
One other factor should be kept in mind in the consideration of Natural Selection.
According to the theory, each and every living organism existing at this very
instant, and all of its forbears, (billions upon billions of each
species) has to have been naturally selected by the process of survival of the
fittest, (but for the minutely few selected by man). The vast majority are descendants
of "stable" genomes and, if Darwin's (New Synthesis) theory were correct, a
nearly infinitesimal number would carry new genetic material accounting for
evolution.
How is the latter type of Natural Selection of new genetic material (which causes
evolution) different from the former (non-evolutionary) type of Natural Selection which
has to have operated to produce the nearly infinite number, by comparison, of the other
organisms that have been "selected" but have not "evolved"?
The fact is, there is no difference at all.
What has occurred in each and every case has been adaptation
of the organism, which is solely a characteristic, or capability, of the genome
(phenotype in the individual), not a "selection" of any action of the
environment or conditions.
It might just as sensibly and as correctly be said, that the
size, location and other features of the Grand Canyon or the Himalayas are also a product
of selection. The term is therefore meaningless. It does nothing to explain the
increased complexity with which Darwin's theory is credited. The "law", or
explanation, for complexity is thus nonexistant.
Kettlewell's famous experiments with the moth are (or were)
accepted by the biological community with glee, in that they seemingly showed Natural
Selection actually at work, a verification of the theory, for the first time. The account
was given wide attention throughout the literature, much the same as the Piltdown Man
Hoax, and from a related scientific field, the Margaret Mead Hoax. (It should be noted
that Kettlewell's work is still cited in biology texts as an example of Natural Selection,
despite the fact that it has
really been discredited. Biology, Raven and Johnson, 2nd ed., e.g. describes
the process as "evolutionary" and "a result of Natural Selection".)
*
Little argument can be had with the fact that Kettelwell
showed some type of "selection" to be operating in nature, but the conclusion
that it exemplifies the cause of evolution is clearly erroneous. The moths (Biston
Betularia) simply displayed an adaptation to surroundings, similar to mimicry, a trait
of virtually all organisms. Later review suggests possible reaction to the sulfur/other
contaminants/ and this possibility, along with others, is seemingly not considered, in the
unscientific explanation found in textbooks.
This hasty conclusion is based strictly on a prior belief in evolution. In any
event, the cause of the change in the moth was not "selection" but rather
the ability of the
organism (above) to adapt. By switching cause with effect, a hitherto
unexplainable phenomenon is thus understood.
In the case of the car (above) that won't start because of
the rain, the real cause of
the failure to start is a defect in the ignition system, not the rain, which defect would
show up under other conditions such as high humidity, or the operation of a car wash. The
method used to describe the defect is a perfectly normal colloquialism found throughout
all society, but hardly a scientific description of the problem. Darwin's explanation of
evolution is equally colloquial, not in the least scientific.
If some form of evolution exists, either through a
preordained plan (as Alfred Wallace and others believe) or some as-yet undiscovered
ability of the genome to reorient itself, it is not as a result of "selection"
but rather only made possible by the effects of the selection (=survival"),
and is adaptation. The action is one of the organism. The cause is unknown. An attempt will be made to
illustrate this cause/effect relationship as it occurs in the concept of Natural
Selection, by a hypothetical scenario.
The Natural Selection Machine
It is 100 years hence, around the year 2100, when an enterprising chap applies for a
patent on a machine which produces food of the very same type we are used to eating.
It is similar in a way to the mythical "horn of plenty", Cornucopia. The
ingredients for
food, the necessary mineral elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., are added to
the device, and from the "horn" spews forth apples, bananas, peaches, pears
vegetables of all sorts and other food items. (Note that this is an amazing discovery,
because at present, humans are incapable of "making" any edible food.)
Quite obviously, the secret of the molecular process used by organisms has been harnessed.
But while this is truly amazing, another facet of the machine is even more amazing. It has
some of the abilities of the kind we attribute today, to Darwinian Natural Selection, in
that it seems to be able to choose, by itself, which products will be produced.
The trigger for this remarkable action is dependent on the input to the machine, but not
in the way you might first suppose. For example, if the machine is producing too many
bananas, say, the operator simply feeds these excess items back into the machine and voila!
the number of bananas is reduced, and productions of other items increased. The machine
thus has a conservative nature, because nothing is wasted. The world is of course,
astonished.
But let us control our astonishment for the time being, and investigate the latter feature
of the machine, the ability to self-alter it's own output. The characteristic is very
similar to the assumed "action" of Natural Selection as held by Darwinists, from
the standpoint that some form of "evolution" seems to be occurring. It appears
that when the machine encounters certain situations in the environment in which it
operates, its basic method
of operation is altered in some way. (This would be the type of machine proposed by
Wallace [above] - we don't know how it works. {By the way, if you think this scenario
is simplistic, read Dawkins' book about 'Mount Improbable'.})
In any event, we can now ask the all-important question: what is the cause of the
alteration of the output of the machine??? If you have answered "the change in the
input to the machine", you are a candidate for belief in Darwin's Natural Selection.
It is not caused by the change in input to the machine rather the real scientific
cause of the change is the capability of the machine to sense the input, and make
changes to the output, by a method which we don't understand. We have, as in
Wallace's machine above, vainly grasped the first relationship observed, and picked an effect
as a cause. (Note that while it is true that no output changes occur unless
there are input changes, that is, input changes are a necessary condition for
output changes, they - like the
water for the corn - are only necessary, not causal. In the same way,
Natural Selection
is necessary for survival, but is not the cause of evolution, if such even
exists.) This is precisely one of the errors of Darwinism. Another is more clearly pointed
out in the discussion which is continued below, on Survival of the Fittest. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
Some History
As noted above, Darwin's original explanation for evolution, Natural Selection,
received criticism from even his closest friends partially because of the florid
language used in the definition of it, without supporting evidence. For example, Darwin
chiefly defined it (and the same technique is carried on to this day) by reference to its effects,
which technique is not a definition at all, but rather an analogy, as opposed to an
explanation of the method by which it worked:
"It may metaphorically be said that Natural Selection
is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations;
rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and
insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each
organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." From Darwin's book, "Origins". (Note that the word
"metaphorically" was added in later editions, to deflect criticism.)
But in as much as Darwin retreated somewhat from this
position, as noted above, in substituting the term Survival of the Fittest for Natural
Selection, the "new" terminology must also be examined to see if it contains a
scientific explanation for the process of evolution he espoused.
The Real Meaning of Survival of the Fittest
The term Survival of the Fittest is a phrase that describes the outcome of a competition
where there is no possibility or even probability (such as can be done in game theory) of
predicting the outcome in advance because of the complexity of the conditions of the
competition. By its very nature it is a tautology, regardless of the situation in which it
is used. It describes only the effect, or outcome, of an event and the cause must be
investigated separately. For example, if it were used to describe the outcome of an auto
race such as the Indy 500 (one of the premier 500 mile races in the USA), using the term
"It will be survival of the fittest" would indicate that the victor would be
unknown until the end of the race. Likewise, if discussing the survival of a
business in a collapsing economy or perhaps the survival of a race of people during the
fierce competition of a war, use of the term Survival of the Fittest would indicate that
nothing would be known about the outcome until the end of the particular event. Herbert
Spencer used the term to describe the result of some of his socio-political theories
(Social Darwinism) on the struggle for human existence, during Darwin's day, in an attempt
to explain the cause of the events.
The Perceived Meaning of Survival of the Fittest
Survival of the Fittest was originally used by Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin's and its
use was urged upon Darwin by both Spencer and Wallace as a better, more descriptive,
explanation of the mechanism by which evolution occurred, as compared with Natural
Selection. The term, in and of itself, contains an implicit assumption that survivors are
an improved form of organism compared to those which do not survive. Spencer had this
belief. Such of course is not the case, and there is no intent here to state that any
thinking biologist, Darwin included, believed this to be true. (However, his florid
terminology suggests this and when introduced to young students, still learning the
process of logic, the meaning will be little other than that. This is particularly true
when the operation of a tautology is not properly understood; thus to a certain portion of
individuals the term itself is an explanation for evolution.)
And in fact, the term itself summons up a vision of continual incremental improvement in
an object such as a car, watch, or other artifact made by man, as it is often used this
way. Alternately, any process performed over and over is likewise subject to trial and
error for the purpose of improvement, and for example, the recipe for a loaf of bread
would possibly be perfected by this means. (Note that in every such case, intelligence is
applied in the improvements).
Not so however is this true in the field of biological reproduction. There is no human
intelligence available to weed out the defectives and alter the process toward a more
desirable end. Here, Survival of the Fittest is far more likely to mean less complexity,
and a simpler organism, since a change in conditions of existence is far more likely to
require adaptability in the genome which is unavailable. Thus the survivors are (of
course) the fittest, but in this case a far simpler organism such as bacteria. There is
little doubt that one of the great mysteries of biological history, the demise of the
Dinosaurs, was a routine application of the concept of Survival of the Fittest, where the
fittest were some form of bacteria. It goes without saying that this outcome is not
envisioned as a form of evolution that is intended to be described by Darwin's theory. Yet
a look at the fossil record shows that something like 99% of the survivors were simpler
organisms. So once again, as in the case of the term Natural Selection, a detailed look at
a Darwinian process shows an entirely unlikely outcome from that outlined by the theory.
Even so, in temporary defense of the theory, it should be pointed out that the fact that
even 99.99% of survivors are simpler organisms, this fact is no proof (except possibly
statistically) that the survivors we know about today are not the 0.01% of survivors that
are more fit from a complexity standpoint and thus prove the methodology of the theory.
But another avenue of logic will be presented to show conclusively that such is not the
case.
Discussion of the "Fittest". What is it?
Of all the barbs thrown at the concept of Darwin's theory, probably none is more prevalent
than the claim that the term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology; of all the defenses
of the theory, explanations of how and why it is not are likewise probably the most
numerous. Darwin himself tried to give explanations of the term "fittest" in
such a way that they did not appear to be synonymous with the word "survival".
For example, he stated:
"Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are
best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny."
Darwin's book, "Origins".
This statement of course is a perfect example of Darwin's
habit of "circular reasoning" and is also a classic example of a tautology. A
perhaps more modern rephrase of the statement
"Statistically, those animals that are the most fit
for survival will create the population of descendants whose characteristics will
eventually come to dominate the genome."
says identically the same thing in a somewhat more obscure
manner, and while the tautology is not as clearly evident, it is none the less a
tautology. In short, neither statement says anything other than the fact that the
survivors (and their characteristics) will tend to survive. The statement is
unquestionably true because by its very nature it cannot be false. It states nothing about
the characteristics of the survivors, or even most importantly the cause of the survival.
Consequently it is meaningless and of no use to the argument or explanation.
But as above, regarding the term Natural Selection, Darwin meant something by the term
Survival of the Fittest also, and the acceptance of it by the biological community, of
long standing, shows that it conveys some kind of meaning as an explanation for a process
that is otherwise not understood. So an examination of the word "fittest" will
be made to see what the true meaning of it, in a "trial and error" scenario
would be, and judge if this meaning is either correct, or adds to the explanation of the
concept of evolution.
The Very "Fittest"
If it is speculated that the term "fittest" refers to an organism which has the
best capability for acquiring, holding, and using all available nutrients, all the while
developing or having a capability of fending off physical threats to its existence, this
concept would indeed be an explanation for a certain possible type of organism. For
example, if marine coral were an interconnected integrated organism, with a need for
correct functioning of all of its parts to maintain the existence of the whole, it could
be called a "fittest" organism, in its own right, without the reference to
"survivorship" to determine its fitness. There are many coral deposits
throughout the world, some which are immense in size, (such as the body of coral
which is currently the State of Florida, USA) but unfortunately, marine coral is really
not an organism, per se, but rather a collection of organisms. Since there are really no
such organisms in existence as described above, it must be concluded that this is not what
the "fittest" is, in the sense of Darwin's meaning.
Limited Fitness
The meaning of the word "fitness" as contained in Survival of the Fittest can
only be construed as the organism fitter than other members of organisms falling into a
special group such as a species, not, as above, the very fittest organism in the universe.
This is consistent with the descriptions used by Darwin and also used by most
evolutionists in the explanation offered for the mechanism of evolution. (Note that there
is no consideration here of the meaning of the term as used by geneticists or population
ecologists).
While the term "best" is about as ambiguous, if it
is understood as meaning those organisms within a group, such as a species, most capable
of adapting to extant conditions such that they survive, it does describe a characteristic
of the organism, unfortunately, after the fact. It is therefore, using this description as
a definition for the characteristics of survivors, possible to study known survivors, kind
of in a "reverse engineering" sort of way, and see if they are in some manner
"the best" which would make them the "fittest".
The Mighty Oak. (Family Quercus) Is it the fittest?
Trees have been around for about 300 million years. It therefore must be assumed that each
species currently living, having survived either in its present form or (allowing
evolution) evolved form, must represent the fittest form of its species. If Darwin's
theory is correct, it is so unlikely as to be impossible that after this period of time
there could be any defective characteristic in a species such as for example, the mighty
Oak. If physical characteristics of the Oak such as its size, shape, strength, and
reproductive capacity are studied one should find that it is impossible to make any
improvements in any of them, after a perhaps 100 million year period of becoming the
"fittest". It would have to be considered the best. So when studying for
example, its reproductive capacity and noticing that this method is what appears to be a
very inefficient system, it is obvious that something is wrong in either the premise (that
it is the fittest) or the conclusion (that the reproductive system) is inefficient.
The method of reproduction of the oak involves the production of an acorn, a fertilized
seed rounded or oblong in shape about 1/2 inch (12 mm.) in diameter which drops from the
tree after maturity. This seed, if by some means covered by soil, if all else goes well,
produces offspring. In and of itself, this system works well, as oaks are very plentiful
throughout compatible portions of the planet, but when compared with other seed
reproduction systems it is indeed nothing but archaic.
A look at the simple dandelion, shows a seed dispersal system far more efficient by at
least several orders of magnitude, than that of the Oak. The same is true of course for
some other trees, such as the Willow and the Cottonwood.
Thus, it is difficult to imagine Darwin's theory being at work here, constantly weeding
out those trees which produce large, very costly (in the competitive sense) seeds, in
favor of those trees which produce smaller and smaller seeds with a marvelous dispersal
system such as the Dandelion. It seems that in a matter of only several hundred thousand
years the actions of continuously choosing "the fittest" by the Darwinian
process would produce the rather trivial (by comparison) changes necessary to make the Oak
and all of its characteristics, the "fittest" in every respect. (Note that while
the Oak may be "more fit" in comparison to other trees, it still must compete
with those of its own species for survival, and thus the requirement of Darwinian fitness
would be imposed). The fact that other trees have supposedly evolved to this condition
makes the situation even more inexplicable, to the extent that the basic premise, namely
that "survival of the fittest" works at all, is unavoidably called into
question. But if this situation is truly unexplainable in reference to Darwin's theory,
let us look at other, similar, situations which also need explanation.
The Fruit Fly. Is it the Fittest?
A quick look in the animal kingdom shows the rapidly reproducing Fruit Fly, (about 2 weeks
per generation) with a serious deficiency, that being the inability to penetrate the skin
of even the thinnest of fruit, and thus release the sugars which begin the process which
produces their food. These mechanisms/processes are available in thousands of organisms,
both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Boring mechanisms, such as in the mosquito,
stingers, such as in the bee/wasp, or a dissolving fluid such as produced by other insects
abound in nature. It is absolutely inexplicable in the Darwinian sense, that some device
or method of doing this would fail to be developed over the past eons of their existence.
It thus must be concluded that while they are survivors, they are not the fittest.
Darwin's theory cannot explain it.
In all there are estimated to be at least 5 million different species, only about 1/3 of
them having been catalogued. With each species having hundreds of physical characteristics
required for survival, we have a right to expect that each one of them, with perhaps a few
explainable exceptions, are the fittest. As can easily be seen by reference to two of the
most common species, they are not. Darwin's theory has not explained the existing spectrum
of living organisms either in the initial development from the mineral state or in the
highly developed state in which it exists today.
A Broader View
It must be concluded that Darwin's theory (and all derivatives) is nothing more than a
prescription for mono-specificity. Over the eons since the Cambrian Explosion, organisms
could not maintain the unique characteristics we see today, if they were constantly
evolving to a "fittest" condition. Instead of squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks,
skunks, groundhogs, raccoons, and the most improbable 200 million year old opossum there
would be one genus filling this niche, with several variants no different than the breeds
of dogs. Why hasn't this happened? No one knows.
Likewise, if the oak had a distribution system as
sophisticated as (say) the cottonwood or the dandelion, would there be any other types of
trees? Darwin's theory cannot explain why this has not happened. An obvious conclusion is
that all the species that are known today are in reality, more like artifacts, whose
characteristics have been limited by some process unknown to science. Darwin realized this
himself, and to "cover his tracks" he stated that organisms only become 'fit
enough' (paraphrasing) not the very "fittest". No evidence was presented for the
mechanism which controls this feature. It is one more "belief" needed to sustain
the belief in Darwin's theory.
A word about Malthus
The fact that both Darwin and Wallace cite the "Malthusian" concept often
described as the "struggle for existence" as the foundation for their theories
is considered to be one of the great coincidences in the field of Science. (In actuality,
it may not be a coincidence at all since there is growing belief that Darwin's
contribution to the theory occurred only after his reading of Wallace's
"Ternate" paper, in 1858). In any event, given even that Darwin's theory is
correct, the concept has nothing to do with the "cause" of evolution, rather it
would affect only the "speed" or rate of same. If evolution proceeds on a
"trial and error" basis, the Malthusian concept increases the number of trials,
and that is all.
However, the concept is immensely important to the outcome of the biological process in
that it weeds out the defectives from a population, kind of a "quality control"
process, and thus insures the stability of the genome, which process is the exact opposite
of evolution. The concept is one of the stability of diversity, not one of the cause
of diversity. Note here again, the inverse logic involved.
(We can be thankful for this process because without it, this planet would be full of
deformed, dying, and dead organisms, as opposed to the marvelous order currently evident.
Bacteria, by far the most prolific predators and seldom if ever recognized as such by
biologists, are chiefly responsible for this order. Once again, nothing in
evolutionary theory explains or accounts for this order.)
Some Darwinian Predictions
The very hallmark of a theory of any kind, is the ability to explain hitherto unknown
processes and thus enable the prediction of actions which may be under study. It has been
noted by many critics of Darwinism, that predictions based on the theory are not possible,
and many defenses are made, likewise, of this charge.
But in reality, if the theory is properly understood, predictions can be made even though
no one living today will live to see the outcome of a prediction. There is nothing
however, which can prevent speculation about what "might/should have been"
according to the theory, and then comparing current reality with what is concluded.
Thus, the DT will speculate about certain species which could reasonably be expected to
have evolved, assuming of course that the theory is at all sound.
Regarding the Oak tree above, the query has already been made as to the unexplainable
limitation of its reproductive capability. It is very hard to see how, if the Oak had
developed a first rate reproduction system such as the type used by bacteria or mushrooms,
(with appropriate differences of course) that there would be such a variety of other
plants in existence. Oaks, like many trees, have the ability to prevent the growth of
other plants for a considerable distance around the perimeter, and it is most likely that
they would become the dominant vegetation. Fruit trees, flowers, grasses and myriad other
plant life might be virtually nonexistent. To say that the consequences of this would be
remarkable, is a gross understatement.
Again, if the Fruit Fly had acquired the ability to penetrate the skin of most fruit, the
results would be equally disastrous.
But things could be worse. There is a wide open niche in the
world of mammals, (as there is in many other areas) for attack by a predator from the air.
Vampire bats fill this niche to a very limited degree, as they obtain blood in a kind of
hit-and-miss mode.
Let us suppose that another bat-like animal had honed it's predatory capability to where
it really was the fittest, and developed a venom-based attack system, not unlike that
found in snakes. Further let us assume that the fluid it used (being the fittest) would
paralyze the largest of mammals, allowing the bats to feed at will for a long period of
time, similar to the way that wasps provide for their young (note that all the
elements to accomplish this are available in many forms throughout existing organisms -
thus the changes would be trivial).
This development would be the death knell for the mammalian species as it exists today,
including mankind, had it occurred. Obviously it hasn't. How to explain this in the
Darwinian sense? There is no explanation. Things don't work that way. The theory is wrong.
Fallacious Theories : the Lucy Principle
Beliefs die hard, and for many reasons. Darwin's theory explains to a believer what is
probably the greatest mystery of the universe, perhaps even greater than the mystery of
the origin of matter, space and time. It is a Godsend to atheists, and agnostics. Those
who work in the field of biology must derive great satisfaction from the belief, in that
they are working in a field that is well understood, albeit the minor gaps which are not
yet explainable. Once a decision or position has been taken on a subject, it is seldom
reversed. Witness the decision made by Alfred Wallace. Wallace made the decision for
Natural Selection (not using this phrase) in his Ternate Paper, the idea having come
to him during a delirium produced by Malaria. He never budged from this position during
his lifetime. This was against his explicit understanding of the "cause/effect"
reversal which is quoted (above) in the web page.
An example of why beliefs are hard to shed is
exemplified by a memorable episode in the comic strip "Peanuts", in a discussion
between Charley Brown and Lucy; Lucy looks skyward and says "Charley, did you ever
notice that clouds make words? Charley looks up and says to her, "Lucy, that is
skywriting". Lucy looks up and says "yes, but sometimes clouds do make
words." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*To anyone familiar with biology textbooks,
particularly those aimed at the youth, this attitude should be no surprise. Consider the
following paragraph, also from the cited textbook
"The EVOLUTION of specialized teeth in mammals
represents a major EVOLUTIONARY advance. In fishes, amphibians, and reptiles, all of
the teeth are essentially the same size and shape; in mammals there has been EVOLUTIONARY
specialization of these teeth into incisors. chisel-like teeth used for cutting; canines,
for gripping and tearing; and molars for crushing an breaking (Figure 49-6). These
EVOLUTIONARY changes and the subsequent specialization's that have taken place in
different groups of mammals, have constituted one of the major reasons for their
EVOLUTIONARY success." (emphasis added)
Note that the paragraph reads just as well, with the exact
meaning intact, if the 5 references to Evolution are left out. Is
it any wonder that parents object to the teaching of
Darwin's theory in school.
This paragraph is by no means untypical, but it is so illuminating that it is stored in my
files under the heading "Evangelical Evolution".
(1)PREMISES AND DEFINITIONS
Darwin's Theory: a scientific theory that explains the development, from the basic
fundamental properties of the elements in the periodic table, of all the diverse living
organisms in the universe, by a process that is random in its entirety. Of necessity it
denies the need for miraculous intervention of any kind, but does not, except by
implication, rule it out. It includes at least four (4) variations of the theory beginning
with the first publication of his book "Origins" to the most recent theory often
called "The New Synthesis". While often called the "Darwin/Wallace
theory", this term is not strictly correct, since Wallace allows for a type of
"spiritual intervention" not accepted by true Darwinists, and omitted, if not
denied, in Darwin's "Origins".
Natural Selection: The term originally used by Darwin
to explain the causal mechanism which is responsible for the operation of his theory. In
scientific, and to some extent lay circles it replaced the idea that "Creation"
was the causal mechanism. Darwin later abandoned this term in favor of the term Survival
of the Fittest. The term Natural Selection is important because it is currently used by
virtually all biologists as the explanation for the mechanism originally intended by
Darwin, in spite of his essential retraction. As above, this discussion shows that the
term is not only meaningless, but in fact is a logical inversion of what actually occurs
in organic reproduction..
Survival of the Fittest: The term adopted by Darwin to
explain the mechanism of Natural Selection after the criticism received from so many
of his peers. According to Darwin the term "is more accurate, and is sometimes
equally convenient". This discussion shows that the concept of the term is,
independently, both erroneous and circular.
Evolution: a process of development of living
organisms which has the capability to increase the complexity of them, from the very first
prokaryotic cell through to the development of the most complex of living organisms, by a
trial and error process. This process is undirected by any method other than the fact of
the success or failure of those organisms, which has been directed by the process called
Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest.
The Five Senses Hypothesis
This is an unstated belief system which underlies the study of all the physical sciences.
The most important of these beliefs is that all phenomena in the universe
are capable of being measured, or acknowledged, by one of the five senses of man. There
are no forces or actions of any kind which ultimately will not be discovered and
recognized by these senses. Thus, there cannot be a Creator, miracles, conceptual thought,
and many other phenomena, which are entirely possible and routinely believed in by the
great majority of people.
Under this belief system, all the activities of man are thus a process of simple animal
behavior, which will (hopefully) someday be understood in natural terms. (Note that a
Nobel prize is never given for a theoretical inquiry of the type made famous by Stephen
Hawking, rather it is bestowed only when a theory has been "proven" by
demonstration to one of the five senses, by experiment.)
This aspect of scientific belief is most appropriately termed "naturalism". It
is really a concept of Philosophy, and is considered by evolutionists, to be, like
evolution itself, a "fact".
Without an understanding of this hypothesis, the process of scientific investigation
contains an assumption, which might be called a "hidden agenda", and in order to
properly understand the limits of scientific thinking, this basic assumption must be
acknowledged.
This entire concept is termed a "hypotheses" because there is no proof
whatsoever for it, and as long as there is one outstanding Question, (about anything in
the field of science) there will never be; more correctly, it should be termed a
"speculation", and in reality it is probably, for many scientists, a Hope.
One would think that the very first item on
the agenda in Science Studies, perhaps in the very early grades, would be an explanation
of this hypothesis and the ramifications of it explained and discussed. It ought to be
noted that to evolutionists, there is no objection to Philosophy being a part of Science,
and the fact that it is absolutely unthinkable to them that Religion be a part of it
only shows a bias of the same sort that keeps Darwin's theory alive. Of course, neither
Philosophy nor Religion are a proper consideration of the physical sciences.
Comments, particularly critical comments, are welcome.
Click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered.
Page created by: rdwillia@flash.net
