Information Related to "God, Science and the Bible (7/06)"
| Audio/Video |
Major evolutionary premise fails in real-life test
Charles Darwin's theory of "sexual selection"—that females of a species choose to mate with males having the best genes—has been held up as a fundamental pillar of evolution in classrooms and science texts for well over a century. Many generations of students have been taught that this is the way evolution works.
After all, from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes perfect sense—females should mate with the highest-quality males of their species to best ensure the survival of their offspring, and this leads to ever-stronger, ever-smarter, ever-improving members of the species, driving the process of evolution ever onward.
There's just one problem: It's not true. Researchers have proved that while the theory may sound good, things don't work that way in real life.
The Wall Street Journal, in a May 5 article titled "Darwin Revisited: Females Don't Always Go for Hottest Mate," summarizes findings from some research projects designed to test Darwin 's hypothesis.
In a 24-year study spanning multiple generations of collared flycatchers (a bird species), Swedish researchers found that females who mated with prime-quality males ended up with fewer and less-attractive offspring. The reason? "The studs were so busy mating they had no time to raise offspring, causing their health and fecundity to suffer. Homelier birds were better dads, raising sons who had more mating success."
In other words, the results were the opposite of what evolutionary theory would have predicted.
Crickets are another notable exception to Darwin 's theory. Female crickets mate with nearly any male, making no attempt to choose the "best" available. In so doing, "they increase the genetic diversity of their offspring, improving the chances that some will survive no matter what pathogens and enemies the kids encounter."
The Wall Street Journal article also points out that "other females are not as enamored of sexy traits as [the] theory claims. While big-antlered red deer are busy fighting each other to show a female who has the best rack, the doe sneaks off to mate with less well-endowed stags. Female red-winged blackbirds are not easily impressed, either. Having the most macho plumage has no detectable effect on how many offspring a male sires."
The article cites Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden as saying: "In a number of species, reproductive behavior does not conform to Darwin 's theory of sexual selection. The idea that females choose the genetically best males is wrong. Instead of choosing mates who will increase the genetic quality of their offspring, females make choices that will increase their number of offspring."
The article also highlights a significant problem with Darwin's ideas about sexual selection—namely, "it fails to explain the persistence of, shall we say, homely males." In other words, if females do indeed choose to mate with males who have the most genetically desirable attributes, "then after enough generations every peacock should have a tail to die for. But they do not. Every flock has studs and duds."
If you would like to learn more about the seldom-discussed flaws in the theory of evolution, and to discover what the scientific evidence really reveals, be sure to request or download a free copy of our eye-opening booklet
"Missing link" discovered?
Proponents of evolution have proclaimed a fossil discovery announced in April (originally found in 2004) as the long-sought "missing link" between water-and land-dwelling creatures. The new species, remains of which were found on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic and are claimed to date to 375 million years ago, has been named tiktaalik.
"'It shows you that one of the great gaps, one of the basic steps in evolutionary past, is from water to land,' said University of Chicago biologist Neil Shubin, coleader of the discovery team. 'It shows in exceptional detail what features evolved and changed at that time period'" (Christianity Today, June 2006).
The New York Times, in an April 6 front-page story headlined "Fossil May Link Fish, Land Animal," hailed the supposed missing link for its characteristics that "anticipate the emergence of land animals," thus making it "a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs."
Note the use of such phrases as "May Link" and "anticipate the emergence." It's important to keep in mind that facts in a situation like this are in short supply, and evolutionists (and Bible believers) interpret such findings according to their beliefs. Because evolutionists so desperately want to find "missing links" in the fossil record, they often jump to unwarranted conclusions.
The Coelacanth species of fish is a case in point. Paleontologists had long been aware of coelacanth fossils from Devonian-period strata supposedly 359 to 416 million years old (interestingly, the same period to which the tiktaalik "missing link" is dated) and thought it to be extinct for the last 65 million years.
Because of its bony fins, coelacanth was itself thought to be a "missing link," with the bony fins thought to enable it to "walk" on the muddy bottom of bodies of water. At least that was the common assumption until, much to paleontologists' surprise, a live specimen of the supposedly extinct fish was netted by a fishing boat off the coast of South Africa in 1938!
Further research turned up dozens of coelacanths off the coasts of several countries. Films made of coelacanths swimming showed that their peculiar lobed fins were used for maneuvering underwater and not for walking.
While detailed studies of tiktaalik need to be made (and released for critical analysis), an initial look at the bony structures of this supposed missing link show similarities to coelacanth and other fish—bones that are not designed for weight-bearing legs.
When all is said and done, this fossil discovery merely represents a new fish genus and species. As for the bony fins, "We already know some fish use their fins to prop themselves out of the water," said Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle, Washington-based educational foundation that promotes intelligent design. "Catfish do that, but they are clearly not evolving into land animals." GN
| © 1995-2022 United
Church of God, an International Association Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. All correspondence and questions should be sent to info@gnmagazine.org. Send inquiries regarding the operation of this Web site to webmaster@gnmagazine.org. |
|
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "God, Science and the Bible (7/06)"
Other Articles by Mario Seiglie
Other Articles by Tom Robinson
Other Articles by Scott Ashley
Origin of article "God, Science and the Bible (7/06)"
Keywords: sexual selection missing links evolution
Evolution and geology: