How not to argue against evolution

Posted by James Tracy on September 16th, 2008

Over the course of my web browsing I ran accross this page maintained by the United Church of God and part of a series titled, “Creation or Evolution? Does it really matter what you believe?” It is, of course, a creationist article and a bad one at that – at least from what I read on this one page. The following is a good example of what happens when someone with a rudimentary and incorrect understanding of the biological theory of evolution by natural selection attempts to formulate an objection against it:

Human reproduction argues against evolution

Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as human beings is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.

If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can’t we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

Let’s take it a step further. If human beings are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet a human infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.

If evolution is true and humanity is the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?

Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often overlooked.

Let’s step back for a second here. This author is under the impression that our very existence is one of the best arguments against biological evolution – and that this ‘obvious’ problem somehow eluded the best scientific minds in the biological sciences of the past 150 years.

Nevertheless, let’s pull this apart. It will not be hard and will not take that long.

If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process…

Such egoism, fortunately, is no longer in fashion. While early theories of evolution were theories of progress, with human beings viewed as the most progressed, that idea was essentially given its first blow by Darwin himself. He argued that evolution is an undirected process and that human beings are just the tip of one branch, out of many, on the thick evolutionary bush. Humans are not the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, rather, we are merely one part of it.

…how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce…

I can’t imagine what convinced this author that sexual reproduction is a disadvantage - other than a lack of effort to actualy consult what evolutionary biologist say about sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction has many advantages, notably that it increases variation in the gene pool by combing the genes of two parents into a unique genome. Asexual reproduction must rely on the occaisonal mutation as its source of variation. Greater variation means greater raw material for natural selection and the faster spread of advantageous traits.

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.

Here is where this author’s ignorance of natural selection and differential reproduction really comes through. Differential reproduction is all about surviving long enough to pass on your genes to the next generation. It is not merely about your own survival. From a genetic perspective, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct advantage for both the adult and the infant. The adult giving its time and energy to caring for the infant increases the prospects for the survival of the adult’s genes as represented by that offspring. Natural selection will favor what increases the chances that the adult successfully passes on its genes to the next generation, not just what will favor that same adult’s survival. An adult who lives a long life but does not reproduce is effectively an evolutionary dead-end.