Unfortunately this theory doesn't stand up to close examination; what it implies is that a species notes a more efficient way of surviving and is able to change its genetic code at will. If this were the case don't you think humans would have grown an extra set of hands by now? How many times have you needed that in a multitude of situations?
As anybody who has studied evolution knows, Darwin came up with his ideas based upon his observations of the different species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. As he travelled from island to island, he made note of the different styles of beak that individual species had, and how they were particularly suited to the food source available to them. As the concept of evolution wasn't a new thing (ancient Greeks and Indian scholars had written on the subject) he had a body of knowledge upon which he could base his theorems.
It's interesting to note that the big dispute about evolution in the 19th and early 20th century did not revolve around whether it existed or not, but whether it was caused by, as Darwin postualted, hereditary means, or as Lamarck said, by adaptive means. As research into genetics grows more sophisticated, including the discovery of DNA, it's become more and more obvious that Darwin's theory of inheritated characteristics caused by mutations is the correct explanation for evolution.
Recently there have been renewed attacks on the theory of evolution by religious people who don't want to accept that anything but the hand of God could have gone into the making of the world. They call themselves Creationists for the obvious reason that they believe everything was created by God.
A third alternative, intelligent design, has been offered up to explain evolution and other "unexplainable" natural occurances. Proponents of this theory claim that certain things are just too sophisticated to have occurred all on their lonesome and that there has to have been some sort of intelligence behind those events.
Since they are deliberately vague about the nature of the intelligence – mainly because they want to keep religion out of it so that it will be accepted as science – it could lead sceptics like myself to wonder what they mean by intelligence. To me these sound like people who aren't honest enough to admit they are creationists, or embarassed by believing in God and are trying to make up science to justify their faith.
I have more respect for a creationist because they are honest about who they are and what they believe in. Besides if you have to justify or prove faith, doesn't that contradict the whole idea of faith? Oh well, I'll leave that for the theologists to fight over.
Article comments
1 - duane
Good stuff there, Richard. I didn't miss 10th grade biology, but I've had many, many years to forget it. Thanks for the review. I'm reminded also of how unlikely it is (or was) that birdwatching could have turned into a revolutionary scientific theory.
2 - Serket
I like reading about evolution and have a interest in genetic genealogy. I am probably kind of an anomaly as I am also a non-religious conservative Republican.
3 - duane
Amazingly enough, evolution is not affected by your political leanings or your religious beliefs. Just ask the finches. From the raving, judgmental, fundamentalist finches all the way across the spectrum to the immoral, heartless, godless finches, evolution just keeps on working.
4 - Odin
It's not a huge flaw just a teeny question about adaptations. Obviously they occur, but why? Who or what is responding? Is the response inherent in the genes in the cells of the finch? How do they know how to respond, buried as they are microscopically in the flesh? What overview can they have?
5 - duane
Mutations, as explained in Richard's article. The organisms are imperfect.
6 - Victor Plenty
All organisms are imperfect. Some are more imperfect than others.
7 - duane
Present company excluded, of course.
8 - Odin
Imperfect or not, why the drive to survive? Why don't all organisms just give up under adverse pressures?
9 - duane
The drive to survive? You mean why does it seem like some kinds of trees found in tropical rainforests are compelled to grow tall enough to reach sunlight? Do you think that trees have an inherent survival instinct?
I feel like I'm being maneuvered.
Why don't all organisms just give up under adverse pressures?
By "give up," you make it sound like a matter of choice. You might look up the Arcaca tree to see some adaptive changes under environmental stress, where the stress is provided by giraffes' tongues. I think you will agree that the trees didn't figure this out for themselves.
10 - Victor Plenty
Some individual organisms do give up under adverse pressure. If they give up and die before they have time to reproduce, that particular trait does not get passed on to a new generation.
Whatever genetic combination might produce a "drive to survive," it will be highly likely to spread throughout the population of any species that develops it.
Occasionally a few individuals may lack any form of survival instinct. That makes their branch of the species far more likely to die out. If they die before producing offspring, they don't make any difference to the overall evolution of the species.