provide shade to decrease moisture loss, paving the way (in the proper climate) for trees.
As the plant communities change, so do the animals. Protozoans are followed successively by worms, insects, birds, and mammals.
Existing species
from another area move in as conditions become favorable — ecology, not evolution . It is
migration
of different kinds,
NOT mutation
of one kind into others, that produces ecological succession. Succession involves only
tens or hundreds of years
, NOT millions.
Death is
not
a necessary part of ecological succession, and at least some kinds in early (pioneer) communities survive through various seral stages into the final (climax) community. Lichens grow on bare rock, for example, but lichens also grow on tree bark in climax forests. Ecological succession on a global scale would have followed both creation ("multiply and fill") and the Flood (migration from Ararat). 41 As discussed later, dramatic environmental changes caused by the Flood would favor both (a) selection for different adaptations among pre- and post-Flood members of the same kind, and also (b) survival of different kinds in different proportions in the pre- and post-Flood ecologies.
Ironically, natural selection and ecological competition don't really provide adequate explanation for presumed evolutionary changes, but they do help explain changes important in the creation model.
(e)
Long term versus short term advantage
. Richard Dawkins, Great Britain's leading spokesman for evolution, refers to evolution by natural selection as the "blind watchmaker." 42 In contrast to creation by plan and purpose looking toward a goal, natural selection, Dawkins asserts, is a "blind" process that does not plan, has no purpose, and can't look ahead toward goals. Natural selection is merely opportunistic, rewarding chance combinations of traits with a slight advantage in Darwin's ceaseless "war of nature."
Dawkins is right about natural selection, but wrong about the nature of the living world.
Natural selection cannot plan ahead
; selection is only the observation that certain trait combinations will win the immediate struggle for survival, becoming, by definition, the fittest —
no matter what that does to the future of the species
. That can have a devastating impact on living things, the exact opposite of the evolutionist's hopes and dreams.
Consider territorial population control. 43 Many birds and mammals regulate their population through a series of complex instincts and "ritualistic combat" in which no death occurs and no predators are necessary. Sea lions, for example, limit their population by "allowing" breeding only on certain restricted territories on small beaches. Males who fail to stake out a territory one year must wait until later years to breed. That guarantees plenty of food for the species as it cruises the Pacific. Suppose a chance mutation knocked out the instinct for territorial recognition. Such a mutant male might establish a new breeding colony on another island and pass on his unrestricted urge to breed. Descendants of such a male would automatically win the struggle for survival in the
short term,
but the
long term effects
might include over-hunting their range and even bringing the species to extinction — or at least replacing gentle territorial control with harsher predatory control. Indeed, some evolutionists blame a large percentage of extinction on the exploitation of environmental resources automatically rewarded by natural selection, which is "blind" to long term consequences.
Natural selection tends to favor specialists, and that also produces problems long term. In a given environment,
specialists
are usually more efficient at exploiting food sources than
generalists,
and evolutionists recognize the tendency for natural selection to convert generalized ancestral populations into ever more specialized descendants. When the environment changes,
highly adapted, specialized
varieties tend to lose out
As the plant communities change, so do the animals. Protozoans are followed successively by worms, insects, birds, and mammals.
Existing species
from another area move in as conditions become favorable — ecology, not evolution . It is
migration
of different kinds,
NOT mutation
of one kind into others, that produces ecological succession. Succession involves only
tens or hundreds of years
, NOT millions.
Death is
not
a necessary part of ecological succession, and at least some kinds in early (pioneer) communities survive through various seral stages into the final (climax) community. Lichens grow on bare rock, for example, but lichens also grow on tree bark in climax forests. Ecological succession on a global scale would have followed both creation ("multiply and fill") and the Flood (migration from Ararat). 41 As discussed later, dramatic environmental changes caused by the Flood would favor both (a) selection for different adaptations among pre- and post-Flood members of the same kind, and also (b) survival of different kinds in different proportions in the pre- and post-Flood ecologies.
Ironically, natural selection and ecological competition don't really provide adequate explanation for presumed evolutionary changes, but they do help explain changes important in the creation model.
(e)
Long term versus short term advantage
. Richard Dawkins, Great Britain's leading spokesman for evolution, refers to evolution by natural selection as the "blind watchmaker." 42 In contrast to creation by plan and purpose looking toward a goal, natural selection, Dawkins asserts, is a "blind" process that does not plan, has no purpose, and can't look ahead toward goals. Natural selection is merely opportunistic, rewarding chance combinations of traits with a slight advantage in Darwin's ceaseless "war of nature."
Dawkins is right about natural selection, but wrong about the nature of the living world.
Natural selection cannot plan ahead
; selection is only the observation that certain trait combinations will win the immediate struggle for survival, becoming, by definition, the fittest —
no matter what that does to the future of the species
. That can have a devastating impact on living things, the exact opposite of the evolutionist's hopes and dreams.
Consider territorial population control. 43 Many birds and mammals regulate their population through a series of complex instincts and "ritualistic combat" in which no death occurs and no predators are necessary. Sea lions, for example, limit their population by "allowing" breeding only on certain restricted territories on small beaches. Males who fail to stake out a territory one year must wait until later years to breed. That guarantees plenty of food for the species as it cruises the Pacific. Suppose a chance mutation knocked out the instinct for territorial recognition. Such a mutant male might establish a new breeding colony on another island and pass on his unrestricted urge to breed. Descendants of such a male would automatically win the struggle for survival in the
short term,
but the
long term effects
might include over-hunting their range and even bringing the species to extinction — or at least replacing gentle territorial control with harsher predatory control. Indeed, some evolutionists blame a large percentage of extinction on the exploitation of environmental resources automatically rewarded by natural selection, which is "blind" to long term consequences.
Natural selection tends to favor specialists, and that also produces problems long term. In a given environment,
specialists
are usually more efficient at exploiting food sources than
generalists,
and evolutionists recognize the tendency for natural selection to convert generalized ancestral populations into ever more specialized descendants. When the environment changes,
highly adapted, specialized
varieties tend to lose out
Similar Books
