FROM Reasonable Faith, Post 104.




I looked up Charles Darwin's chapter on Natural Selection (Chapter 4 in Origin of the Species) and I understand that various traits of physical strength make up one category of the traits that natural selection targets--at least for those species for whom physical strength is a definite advantage.

Speaking of all species from animals to birds and insects, he says:

No country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly adapted to each other and to the physical conditions under which they live, that none of them could anyhow be improved; for in all countries, the natives have been so far conquered by naturalised productions, that they have allowed foreigners to take firm possession of the land. And as foreigners have thus everywhere beaten some of the natives, we may safely conclude that the natives might have been modified with advantage, so as to have better resisted such intruders.

He uses a lot of exhaustive terms here, i.e. "no country," "everywhere," "all the native inhabitants," etc. Today, such language would be suspect but he was a child of his times. All the same, we can be sure that what he observed applied to a large majority of individual birds, animals, and insects he observed on his trip around the world on board the Beagle. He was also in correspondence with other naturalists around the world so that he also used their observations and insights to arrive at his conclusions.

That is one of the hallmarks of sound scholarship. In addition, despite a century and a half of rigorous scientific research to prove him wrong, no one has yet managed to do so. That is what is meant when it is said that the theory has stood the test of time for 150 years. That is outstanding.

Given that he was looking at the entire range of animals, physical strength must of necessity have been one of the traits he included under natural selection. Read the chapter for yourself.

Adaptability to the environment is the key issue. Thus, by interpreting "strongest babies" as "physical strength" is not exactly a true interpretation of my meaning. "Strong" can also mean the ability to fight off the common cold or other disease to which the young are so highly susceptible. This would apply especially to the human species. Different illnesses exist among the different species but among most species the young are susceptible to "childhood diseases" to which adults are not as susceptible.

For some species, adaptability is first and foremost the ability to merge visibly with the environment to escape predators. (Obviously, Darwin does not talk about all of these species because not all of them were yet discovered in his day, but we can apply the principle all the same.) Humans are especially inept at this (merging with the environment); the strength of humans is their intellect not only to out-smart their victims but also their predators, and in this way to use tools/technology to serve their own purposes in the food chain and beyond. Some species have the special ability to out-run, out-swim, or out-fly (travel faster on their own biological power than) predators and/or victims. Obviously, this depends a lot on physical strength.

Some species, such as skunks and wasps, have special "weapons" by which to defend themselves from predators. How species, humans included, adapt to drastically varying climates and foods is another fascinating topic accounted for by natural selection. Darwin hints at this very broadly if one reads carefully; he does not treat it as a topic for its own sake in Chapter 4--at least, not as far as I read just now.

In summary, those babies that fail to survive due to illness, lack of special nutrition, inability to run fast enough or fight off predators, etc. do not reproduce, and their genes are not passed on to successive generations. Across billions of years, this evolves into discernible patterns. The fossils are left behind and we can see the patterns to trace the record.

Possibly natural selection is not the right answer but no better answer has yet surfaced since this one was introduced in 1859. Natural selection has stood the test of time for a century and a half. The God hypothesis is definitely not more likely because that is where it all started five hundred years ago! There was no evidence for God then and there is none today.