Darwin Survival Theory

Jake Nikkila
Mrs. Mehr
English 10
2 Febuary 2013
The Truth About Survival Many individuals are under the impression Darwin’s theory of evolution is the explanation to survival and the answer to many other questions, and believably so. It is a highly logical theory that only the strong can survive. Believers use examples like the food chain and similar appearances among different species, like humans and the monkey, to justify Darwin’s theory. However, this theory is just that, a theory, and although seemingly logical, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is misleading and invalid and therefore is irrelevant to the ecosystem. Survival is not determined by the “fittest” or “natural selection,” but is instead determined by chance as described in
For example, based off of Darwin’s theory, only the weak will die from natural disasters such as hurricanes, fires, and tornadoes. However, it does not matter how fast, strong, or smart the individual is, if at the wrong place at the wrong time, the individual will perish. This is similar to disease. Odds of surviving AIDS and Cancer are the same from individual to individual; no other factors other than chance apply. In fact, according to Jane Collingwood, being too fit can actually increase your chance of a heart attack. Prolonged exercise can actually lead to the narrowing of coronary arteries in combination with an enzyme that is produced that causes mini heart attack, which can ultimately lead to death (Collingwood). Therefore, the idea that “survival of the fittest” being historically accurate is preposterous. In fact, Darwin himself did not even believe his own theory. Darwin wrote a letter in 1858 to one of his colleagues stating that “You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming of this book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts” (Gale). This statement shows that even the founder of this deceitful theory was not even sure it was
However, many science journals tend to disagree. According to researchers at Moffitt Cancer Center, “cancer is subject to the evolutionary processes laid out by natural selection…(and) Darwin’s principals will always evolve to resist treatment”. This is once again a great theory, but if cancer is evolving to surpass our technology, then why have cancer survival rates doubled in the past 30 years (Cancer). Any patient with cancer had an approximately (depending on the person, type, and other factors), had a 46.2 percent survival rate ten years after diagnosis, compared to 23.6 percent 30 years ago (Cancer). Therefore, “if cancer is subject to the evolutionary process”, and cancer is not evolving to survive, then that information leads society to believe that evolution is nonexistent. Even though much science attempts to back up Darwin’s theory of natural selection, there are articles out there that defy it. Researchers at Uppsala University believe that “rather than being the result of Darwinian Selection for new adaptations, many of the genetic changes…may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations” (Natural Selection). This means that evolution is random, and therefore survival is not determined by the “fittest” as Darwin