Hot-Button Issue: Natural Selection

02Nov08

One major argument against creationism is that of natural selection. Many think of it as farfetched, but I think it is within reasonable justification. I really would just like a clear, concise way to describe it to someone. Clearly, people cannot fully comprehend it because the logic behind it just doesn’t seem logical; though, I think it is because many have a lack of education on this matter. Let’s ask Merriam-Webster:

Natural selection – n: a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment

So what is this really saying? Basically, it is stating the following:

1) It is naturally-occurring in Nature.

2) Those best adjusted to their environment will survive.

3) The genetic qualities of those who are best adjusted will survive.

4) Those best adjusted to their environment are successful in reproducing.

Okay, so the basics of Darwin’s theory have been stated. They make sense – at least in the simplified state. So, how can one relate this to real-life?

Imagine that there is a species of rabbit in the Arctic. They have wolves to which they are prey. Those rabbits that can develop a white, fur coat will be more successful in survival than those with brown or black coats. How is this? The darker coated hares will be easier to sight for the wolves, and, therefore, will more likely be killed. This gives those with a white coat a better chance – increasing the amount of white rabbits and decreasing the other colored-coated creatures.

However, take into consideration the theory of plate tectonics. Give it a few thousand years, and your climate could be variably different. Though black and brown used to be less successful, now they are more common because the rabbits’ current climate might be in a forest with higher temperatures and clearer seasons than previously in time. This makes darker colors more successful.

This is “microevolution”, and fundamentalists don’t have as hard of a time with this idea as “macroevolution”, particularly because they created the distinction. But little do they know that macroevolution is just microevolution on a grand scale. They defeat their own argument.
<Photo2>
Imagine that the land mass the rabbits are located on were to divide, such as because of a massive earthquake. They would be separated and cut off from one another. Give it a few million years, and microevolution can turn into macroevolution. Just imagine, if in a few hundred years, they can change color or develop more limber features, what can they do in such an immense amount of time? Good God, the earth is over 4 billion years old, and scientists have proved it with many rock dating experiments. That’s plenty of time for ANYTHING to happen.

Yet, many argue this point saying that each and every animal was created to be perfectly suited to its environment and that the earth was only seven to ten thousand years old, according to Biblical testaments. However, natural selection does make it appear that an organism is perfectly suited for its environment, and that’s because it’s developed OVER A LONG TIME as such. When you have a species constantly changing to survive to others species changing to survive, it can make a vast difference over 4,000,000,000 years. Just look at all those zeros; anything could happen in that time.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: Evolution, Hot-Button