First, let me start by saying that I
voted up almost every write-up in this node because there are obviously some
educated people who are addressing this topic. Now, I would like to interject my views.
Charles Darwin was a scientist. He observed certain
phenomena regarding the evolution of the species of life that exist on our
planet. The fundamental ideas behind his theories are based on
fossil research and
archaeology. He proved (and these proofs have been verified over and over again by reputable scientists) that
genetic mutations of animals define which animals survive and which animals die. And that the survival or death of these mutations depend on the
environment in which the animals exist. Also, these mutations do not occur
because they are suited to the environment, they occur by
chance, and thus occurring, those with the mutations more suited to the environment tend to survive while those less suited to the environment die off.
Darwin's
'survival of the fittest' theory is quite accurate when describing animal species. Animals that
exert no control over their environment are subject to their environment and, if lacking the ability to exist in this environment or the ability to
migrate to a more suitable environment will become
extinct, while animals that are suited to their environment (whether or not they exert any control over it) will survive.
Darwin's theories fail with regard to animals that
do exert control over their environment. To date, the only animal species that exhibits this trait is the
human being. The human adapts to its surroundings not by mutation, but by
reason. The human being is a
self-aware animal that realizes (not unlike other animals) that it will die if it is too cold or too hot, or if it is hungry. But the human (unlike other animals), will take steps to alter its surroundings by making them less cold or less hot, and to ensure that adequate
nourishment is available. Thus, the fundamental difference between human beings and other animals that are subject to 'survival of the fittest'.
New theories must be devised to describe the
survival of the human being, then, as less fit (according to Darwin's theory) individuals continue to survive. Darwin provides no basis for
intellect in his theories, and it would seem that trait more than any other is the one that determines the survival of the human race. In studying the existence of animal species throughout known history, one will find that there are striking similarities in the
rise and fall of individual animal species. The population of any given animal tends to rise (if the species is suited to its environment),
plateau and then fall abruptly (the one exception being the
cockroach, which has pervaded throughout known history largely due to its
singular ability to survive almost any crisis).
The human being, on the other hand, has defied these norms, growing in population to a greater degree than any other animal. This phenomenon is due simply to the fact that the human is not subject to survival by
mutation, but to survival by
adaptation. Humans have populated the Earth by altering the Earth to fit its needs. These alterations include the building of
shelters, the invention of items which facilitate survival,
knowledge of things that cause death and the ability to
learn from history. Other animals do not posess these environment-altering capabilities.
I have not meant for this write-up to be a
contradiction to the previous viewpoints expressed here, but
merely a new idea.