Darwin Survival Theory

Jake Nikkila
Mrs. Mehr
English 10
2 Febuary 2013
The Truth About Survival Many individuals are under the impression Darwin’s theory of evolution is the explanation to survival and the answer to many other questions, and believably so. It is a highly logical theory that only the strong can survive. Believers use examples like the food chain and similar appearances among different species, like humans and the monkey, to justify Darwin’s theory. However, this theory is just that, a theory, and although seemingly logical, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is misleading and invalid and therefore is irrelevant to the ecosystem. Survival is not determined by the “fittest” or “natural selection,” but is instead determined by chance as described in
ancient epics, recent novels, and real life instances.
Ancient epics specifically demonstrate how survival is only determined by chance. Many of history’s greatest heroes have been slayed, not because they weren’t fit enough, but because they were just not lucky enough to survive. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu was an animal forged by the gods specifically to kill Gilgamesh. Even though he was exceptionally powerful, he dies in the end by sickness. The Illiad, by Homer, also has three exceptionally powerful warriors that all die in happenstance. First, Achilles is considered the greatest warrior of all time. With the royal blood of being a great grandson of Zues himself, son of Theatis the sea goddess, cousin of Ajax the great, and a decendent of Alexander the Great, he has the background to have unparalleled skill and strength in battle (U, Will). Following that, he was trained by Chiron, the teacher of other great demigod hero’s such as Heraclas and Jason. On top of all of that, he was dipped in the river styx to become immortal to all weapons, except for the missed spot on his heel (Stewart). Because of these, Achilles became “the fastest, bravest, largest, most bloodthirsty warrior at Troy . No man could match his fighting skills…” (Stewart). Even though Darwin’s theory states clearly that Achilles should survive due to his skill and near immortality, he instead is killed at his single weak point, his heel. Another powerful hero in The Illiad is the Great Ajax, who earned his title as “According to Homer Ajax joined the expedition of the Greeks against Troy… and was next to Achilles the most distinguished and the bravest among the Greeks” (AJAX). He was a leader of the army who was unrivaled. Yet, even though he was more powerful was “vicious, fearless, strong, powerful, and intelligent”, he lost a duel to the lesser opponent of Odysseus, even though Darwin’s theory states he should have survived. One final example of how Darwin’s theory is refuted in The Illiad is Great Ajax’s partner, Little Ajax. Though his name is deceiving, his value in war was exceptional. He led 40 ships to besiege Troy and was “brave and intrepid, especially skilled in throwing the spear and, next to Achilles, the swiftest of all the Greeks” (Ajax The Lesser). Once again, even though he was favored to survive, his ship crashed in a storm on the way back from Troy and he drowned. In multiple instances of multiple ancient epics, Darwin’s theory of evolution in contradicted repeatedly, demonstrating that survival is not depicted by strength, fitness, or intelligence as generally assumed, but instead is specified by chance alone. This consistent theme of survival by chance in not only depicted in Ancient Epics, but also in modern day novels and works such as Night, Lord of the Flies, and Life of Pi. In Night, this idea is demonstrated throughout the entire plot of the novel by the actions of the S.S. in killing random Jewish citizens. The Jewish community is not any stronger or weaker or in any way different than the rest of their society minus their faith. Therefore, the Jewish were killed by chance, not by any formula depicting who survives and who does not. Also, those killed among the Jewish in the concentration camps was also random as verified by Elise Wiesel when he writes “If vigor was that appreciated, perhaps one should try to appear sturdy? My father thought the opposite…(We later found out that he had been right)” (Wiesel 35). This happenstance of survival is also depicted in the modern novel of Lord of the Flies by William Goulding. In Lord of the Flies, kids are stranded on an island and many of them perish. However, who dies on the island seems to be happenstance. Both strong, older children like Piggy and Simon, and weaker children, like the “littluns” die. Simon was killed in a rush of excitement by the other boys, Piggy was killed by a massive boulder, and several littuns have died in a forest fire and in other scenarios (Golding). This illustrates the accident of chance of survival and how external factors such as fitness cannot dictate. Finally, Darwin’s theory is also opposed by The Life of Pi by Yann Martel. In this novel, an average, non-specifically athletic 16-year-old boy named Pi survives for 227 days on a lifeboat with a Bengal Tiger, Hyena, Zebra, and Orangutan. Darwin states that in this situation, the zebra would die first, then Pi, then the Orangutan, then the Hyena, and finally the strongest animal the Bengal Tiger would survive the longest. However, instead the Zebra dies first, then the Hyena, then the Orangutan, and both Pi and the Tiger survive (Martel). His survival was determined by chance and anything could have happened at any time for him to perish. Not only is Darwin’s theory heavily disputed within novels, but is also disputed in society and in everyday circumstances.
For example, based off of Darwin’s theory, only the weak will die from natural disasters such as hurricanes, fires, and tornadoes. However, it does not matter how fast, strong, or smart the individual is, if at the wrong place at the wrong time, the individual will perish. This is similar to disease. Odds of surviving AIDS and Cancer are the same from individual to individual; no other factors other than chance apply. In fact, according to Jane Collingwood, being too fit can actually increase your chance of a heart attack. Prolonged exercise can actually lead to the narrowing of coronary arteries in combination with an enzyme that is produced that causes mini heart attack, which can ultimately lead to death (Collingwood). Therefore, the idea that “survival of the fittest” being historically accurate is preposterous. In fact, Darwin himself did not even believe his own theory. Darwin wrote a letter in 1858 to one of his colleagues stating that “You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming of this book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts” (Gale). This statement shows that even the founder of this deceitful theory was not even sure it was
viable. Many people are under the impression that Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct because “that is what science tells us”.
However, many science journals tend to disagree. According to researchers at Moffitt Cancer Center, “cancer is subject to the evolutionary processes laid out by natural selection…(and) Darwin’s principals will always evolve to resist treatment”. This is once again a great theory, but if cancer is evolving to surpass our technology, then why have cancer survival rates doubled in the past 30 years (Cancer). Any patient with cancer had an approximately (depending on the person, type, and other factors), had a 46.2 percent survival rate ten years after diagnosis, compared to 23.6 percent 30 years ago (Cancer). Therefore, “if cancer is subject to the evolutionary process”, and cancer is not evolving to survive, then that information leads society to believe that evolution is nonexistent. Even though much science attempts to back up Darwin’s theory of natural selection, there are articles out there that defy it. Researchers at Uppsala University believe that “rather than being the result of Darwinian Selection for new adaptations, many of the genetic changes…may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations” (Natural Selection). This means that evolution is random, and therefore survival is not determined by the “fittest” as Darwin
theorized.
The truth is, this theory cannot be accurate when no proof can prove his theory conclusive. If evolution did exist, which would prove that only the fittest can survive, then it would still be occurring today, and it is not. In fact, scientists have done experiments on fruit flies, a species with a short and rapidly reproducing species, hoping that a new species would develop from it, but alas, they failed. Jeffery Schwartz states “it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed” (Morris). In reality, it is scientifically proven that evolution cannot happen at all because of the second law of thermodynamics. It states that all systems in the real world tend to go “downhill” in decreased complexity. It applies to all systems without exception. Written in W. A. Dembski's book, it states that “No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.” (Morris) When life can be defined as a very complex chemistry system, this law must apply to them too. Overall, through ancient epics to modern day novels and even scientific evidence and theory, it is unconditionally impossible for Darwin’s theory to be correct and for evolution to possible occur.