World may not be as bad as we are made to believe...

This article of mine dates back to 2004 (when I was in second year at IITD). I was given an assignment in HU481N to express my comments on the Darwin's Theory. As always I started with googling and as always it meandered to our beloved DC++ (file sharing system which had loads of time consuming videos). It was only at 4 in the morning that I realized that I have not even started my assignment and as always I wanted to hit my head and my computer hard. I still remember that in this feeling of utmost repentance, I started thinking and then most of the thoughts expressed in this article just flowed. I would be lying if I say that it is completely original and there are many ideas which I have taken from some conservative articles on the Net. (Catholics also hate Darwin!) Still it is some honest thinking which was involved in writing it and I still stand by most of the things which I have written. I do not and cannot claim that it is some ingenious piece of philosophy and like all my thoughts it is thinking on things from a simple and plain way.

And like most of my earlier writings, I find it hard to read as some of the things I wrote look extremely childish (see I don't rebuke evolution!)

I accept it is heights of overconfidence to write against something which is widely accepted by so intelligent people and which came from one of the most brilliant thinkers of all times. Still I would request people to read it, as there may be some small probability that my foolishness may not that foolish at the end of day.

http://m.1asphost.com/shivalikhouse/files/Drishti/article1.htm

Survival of the Fittest

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was a British naturalist, who revolutionized the science of biology

by

his demonstration of evolution by natural selection. Darwin was born in Shrewsbury on 12 February

1809, exactly the same day on which another revolutionary stalwart Abraham Lincoln was born. In

his youth Darwin took a voyage from 1831 to 1836. Darwin returned with observations he had

made in Tenerife, the Cape Verde Islands, Brazil, the Galapagos Islands, and elsewhere. By 1846

Darwin had published several works based on the discoveries of the voyage giving a new face to

modern science.

Darwin basically proposed two points:

1. There is a continuous process of evolution which occurs universally in every species (Theory of Evolution)

2. Only the fittest survives in the nature (Natural Selection)
Darwin's great work, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” was heavily attacked because it did not support the depiction of creation given in the book of Genesis. Darwin's argument that natural selection - the mechanism of evolution - worked automatically, leaving little or no room for divine guidance or design. All species, he reasoned, produce far too many offspring for them all to survive, and therefore those with favorable variations - owing to chance - are selected. At Darwin's hands evolution matured into a well-developed scientific theory.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

Before going any further, we will have to firstly discuss on the actual meaning of ‘fittest’. If we take the crude meaning (or rather more accepted) version of ‘fittest’ i.e. one who is physically stronger than we are stuck up with innumerable counter examples .The biggest being extinction of dinosaurs because if physical strength be the measure of fitness then dinosaurs will always top the list. If we include intelligence and other such traits then too we cannot conclude survival of cockroaches and extinction of dinosaurs. By survival of fittest ,Darwin 'hopefully' not says survival of toughest or fastest, biggest, smartest, what he said probably meant who is more fit in that environment. Darwin probably said that the organism that best fits the environment will dominate .The plant and animal 'fittest' to its natural environment ,according to Darwin would be the most likely to survive and thrive.

According to me the philosophy which suggests that the stronger species survives, despite being popular, is fallacious .At first instance we may think in affirmative but this only indicates our deeply rooted reductionist attitude. Each and every individual on this earth is interdependent .Biologists recognize symbiosis in some cases but actually we are symbiotic to each other irrespective of the quality of species. For example between man and plants either man is fitter or the reverse .But if a struggle between the two takes place ,as it is the case, no one will be the winner. Because the existence of man is dependent upon plants and so does dependence of plants on man. Similarly any two species cannot live without each other and if a struggle has ever taken place then nothing but entire ecology has been affected.

There is one more catch in 'SOTF'. It's a phrase that describes the outcome of a competition where there is no possibility of predicting the outcome in advance. Because of complexity of the conditions of the competition .For example, if it were used to describe the outcome of an auto race, using the term, ‘It will be the survival of the fittest’ would indicate that the victor would be unknown until the end of the race. Infact for nature, where number of parameters is more, the determination of fitter becomes nearly impossible. This indicates a basic logical flaw in our theory because there is no means to predict the outcome and so our prediction comes after the experiment has completed.

SOTF basically depends upon the nature of the struggle. If for example, a famine comes then the survivors would be deep-rooted trees .on the other hand in a wind or flood short grasses or small herbs may survive. If we trace the evolution of the world then such antagonistic circumstances would have come time and again. And because of the randomness of such incidents the implication goes that nature favors no one. In every changed context, SOTF would favor a different being. Every calamity would have its own preferences. Looking at the issue of the survival in relation to varying threats and challenges to life as it hazards its journey through a billion years of evolution, it is hard to visualize any survival at all .little chances, if any, can be envisaged for the survival of all forms of life, because different crisis has its own favorite targets which most often will not be same.

INFERENCE:

The above assertions and inferences do not take us to deep dire straits but indicate a beautiful method in nature .The nature is not a boxing ring where the one who is stronger and adapts to the rules of the game well, wins. Infact nature can never see a total WIN LOSE situation. WIN LOSE situation is always a transient stage and the equilibrium always shifts to LOSE LOSE situation. Nature possesses an excellent equilibrium which preserves the sanctity of each and every being and destroys all those who attempt to make change in it. You may call it God or deny saying so but the eternal fact remains that there is an inherent method of arrangement around us. We are interdependent on each other and our existence depends on every single entity out of the billion organisms in this universe. My existence to some extent depends upon a George Bush living in Washington and so on a chimpanzee thriving in the African jungles. The problem is that we have been so accustomed to 'reductionist ' attitude that we fail to appreciate the role of others (which may be our worst enemy) in our existence.

SOTF is fallacious on the account of non predictability of the outcome .Even in the mot simple of situations like a cricket match; we cannot for sure say that Sachin will be the man of the match. There will only be a probability of him being so. I am not suggesting whether God plays dice or not. But for sure the outcome is non deterministic in nature. The reason behind it may be the randomness of the experiment or an inherent incapability of human brain.

My argument also suggested that the fittest may vary from experiment to experiment and this implied that every species should have become extinct by now. Our present status completely rejects this fact. The truth is that co-existence and not struggle, is the essence of the universe. Symbiosis, peace and co-existence are not concepts but are reflected by even most damned of organisms. Recalling our previous example, in times of famine it is the bigger tree which prevents grass from direct sunlight and when a storm

comes small herbs hold the soil. Darwin was right in noticing the 'urge of existence’ but that urge results in co-existence and not struggle. It is our obsession with the materialistic world view which makes us to see selfish measures in everything. It’s same as seeing half glass empty rather than half glass full.

CONCLUSION:

Darwin's theory was based on innumerable experiments with exhaustive observations. Theory of evolution has been successful in reasoning innumerable things of nature. Though they have some 'missing links' but they can be ignored. The problem is not in 'Theory of Evolution' but reasons (SOTF) which are given to it. SOTF is on the first place non real because survival is always of a universal concept and success can not be attributed to one of the interdependent entities. Even if it is real, SOTF is non deterministic in nature so it never becomes important. Even logically there is a huge paradox in the entire theory. Lastly co-existence and not struggle is the essence of nature. We all are interdependent of the huge nature (Some may call it 'God') and cannot live without each other. Our existence depends upon the success of the other and not in their extinction. We belong to huge family and success (happiness) of that lot is contributed by every single element. We must realize this and harmonize with others.

After all it is universal peace which only can ensure our existence.

- Akshat Shankar