Natural Selection versus Chance

I am often confounded that scientists in favor of intelligent design often equate evolution to chance alone, and do not acknowledge the presence of natural selection. It is as if natural selection does not play any role in the theory of evolution. Such ignorance should be discussed, because natural selection is the crux of evolution.

I would like to first identify and define the theory of evolution, a definition that I believe most evolutionary scientists use. Evolution is a process of gradual development from pre-existing organisms or cells that is dependent upon random variation but guided by non-random processes. Plain chance does not play in the game of survival, for chance alone, or randomness, is dependent upon many other factors – factors being the constituents of natural selection. Put it this way. A biological system survives only if it were more able to adapt to its environment, and that its existence is dependent upon a pre-occurrence of random variation. This variation, however, is not very random indeed, for it is also constrained by the survival of past biological systems that managed to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. Variation is only random to the extent to of the random combinations of DNA that a given offspring may have. Yet this randomness itself depends upon the sexual cells’ ability to reach the other sex cell and fertilize each other. Chance alone is non-existent, for chance itself is dependent upon many other factors.

Before I continue with my discussion, I would like to first explain a very misunderstood phrase: survival of the fittest. When evolutionists talk about fitness, it does not necessarily mean agility or size of the organism. Rather, fitness pertains to adaptability, and that an organism may be fit only if it has the traits that increase its likelihood of its survival, in terms of level of adaptability.

I think the reader can plainly see that I stress adaptability and the natural selection. Whether it be fitness or evolution in general, chance alone cannot account for the complexity of evolution.

Random variation is a concept that is not hypothetical at all, because scientists can plainly see immunological variation in rapidly reproducing bacteria and viruses. Chance alone is not in any way the whole substance of the evolutionary equation. As bacteria reproduce rapidly, a few may mutate or be reproduced with a few minor molecular dissimilarities and may end up with the production of proteins that inhibit the function of drugs that supposedly kills bacteria.

I would like to end saying that readers must keep in mind that evolution is not guided by chance alone. No matter how improbable the existence of a biological system may seem, always remember that evolution is not instantaneous, but gradual. The evolutionary process of a given species slowly becomes more and more complex, and that each molecular mutation - small improbabilities – will ultimately form a system that seems designed rather than evolved. The illusion can be cleared only with an critical eye. Evolution is not the development of organisms from simple forms by chance alone, but rather by the guidance of non-random processes.

[For greater understanding read Richard Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene]