There has been a recent surge I have noticed on the web of the idea that selection is actually random, that predators choose and eat prey in a purely random process. This notion is in complete error, and obviously originates by groups attempting to perpetuate misinformation about evolution, namely creationists. Darwin actually was dismayed at the use o the term "Survival of the fittest" and thought it inappropriate. Here I will report a common example of this misinformation.

From "Answering Common Arguments" at http://www.rae.org/revev8.html we see…

"The Survival of the Fittest

One paramount argument for the theory of evolution is the idea of "survival of the fittest." Early evolutionists thought that predators
have a beneficial effect toward the species they prey upon by removing the old, sick, and maimed. The selection of the weak as prey
is central to the dogma of evolution.

Recent evidence instead indicates that random selection, not selection of the weak, determines which animal is eaten. Further studies
show that under certain situations there is a selection against the strong and healthy, with predators passing up weak and sick animals
for healthy ones. The implications of these studies against evolution are obvious.

E. Norbert Smith conducted experiments where he offered two mice to a snake, one mouse active and healthy, the other listless and
sick. The snake usually selected the healthy active one first. In fact, the ill mouse often remain unnoticed in a secluded corner for
hours.1

What does this mean? Supposedly through natural selection predators continually upgrade the breeding stock of the prey species
providing the selective "force" for evolution. If the opposite is true, or if random selection is really the case, no "driving force" exists."

Apparently, in this experiment, Norbert thought by throwing an old sick mouse and a young healthy mouse in a Plexiglas box with a hungry snake, he would prove or disprove Natural selections alleged role in evolution. There are a few problems with this experiment however, that anyone with an understanding of science will immediately recognize. First, had the snake indeed chosen the sick and old and decrepit animal, this might actually suggest that natural selection did not have an influence on evolution. But instead, the snake chose the healthy animal, as evolution would suggest. Had Norbert or any creationist had any understanding of the role that genes play in evolution and selection they would have realized this, but since creationist depend on the scientific ignorance of their target audience, it did not particularly matter. Had the snake indeed chose the old and decrepit animal, this would indicate that this particular snake, when encountering a situation in which It could choose food between and old, weak, decrepit mouse and a healthy young mouse would chose the former. How irrational would this be? That means that this snake contains in it genes for selecting weaker more decrepit animals in situations when a choice is possible, the prey animals could easily pass their sickness to the snake itself. Of course, provided with a choice, the snake will opt for the healthier specimen. This is of course not a conscious decision. For if a snake chose the later, it’s ancestors would also have chosen the later, and each successive generation might chose the latter. Choosing a sick weaker prey over a healthy prey would certainly decrease the chances of an animal procreating from each generation to the next when it is in competition with another predator which would always choose the stronger. This is no different than your picking of healthier looking meat when at the grocery store, would someone choose an abnormally thin and sickly looking fish over a nice fat healthy one? Of course not, nor would this snakes genes allow this decision to be made.

Secondly, the statistical sample was FAR too small. Taking one snake, and placing it in a cage with two mice, is certainly not a large enough sample to obtain ANY useful information. Such is the nature of the scientific methodology. Of course, creationists accept it whole heartily, because superficially it confirms their beliefs. Confirmation Bias rears its ugly head again. To make this experiment useful, a very large number of snakes would have been needed, as well as a very large number of mice, and a very large number of trials. Why is the size of the experiment so important? Well, say we wanted to determine what color marbles were in a jar. If we were to remove one marble and find that it is red, does that mean that ALL the marbles are red? Of course not. If we removed another marble and it was red as well, does this mean that all marbles are red, of course not, we still don’t know. If we pulled out a third marble and found that it was blue, does that mean that red and blue are the only colored marbles in the Jar. Nope, we still don’t know, our statistical sample is just not large enough. Suppose that we removed one thousand marbles now, and 498 of them are red, and 502 of them are blue. With this large sample, we can deduce that it is likely that half of the marbles are red, and half of them are blue. Of course, this does not mean that half are read and half are blue, it simply means that it is probable. Likewise, if one snake chose a healthy mouse that was fed to it anyway, does this mean that all snakes do this, of course not. Suppose we tested one thousand snakes and all but one chose the healthy one, now that is a significant statistical sample, but probably still not enough, there are over 10 million snakes easily in the US alone, so we have less than .01% of them tested. In either case, the nature of the experiment is flawed as is the hypothesis it is trying to prove, or disprove. That is dealt with next.

Third, the natural environment was not replicated. Natural selection is not the weeding out of the weak, as so many creationists and neo-nazis would have one think. Instead of "survival of the fittest" the term should read "probable survival of the best adapted" Laboratory mice are certainly not well adapted to a Plexiglas cage. Predators do not chose prey on their health conditions, they chose prey that they can catch, and that they can see. Snakes in the wild are not handed two mice, one healthy, the other sick. This is an utterly pathetic attempt at an experiment by an untrained and biased creationist. Let me attempt to illustrate this clearly with a simple analogy. When a soldier heads off into the battlefield, they are meant to kill the enemy when they come into contact with them. Now imagine the soldier is the predator, and the enemy is the prey. The prey would benefit by not being "seen" by the predator, just as the predator would benefit by not being seen by the prey (he could get into range of the enemy). Hence the use of CAMOFLAUGE by the military. If the Soldiers objective was to kill the prey, he would have to see them to kill them. Most of the enemy have camouflage in the dense woods, so it is difficult to see them. But along comes one dressed in orange, this enemy can be said to be "not well adapted" to the environment. It is far more likely that he will be killed by the predator than his well camouflaged cousin. This is only one example of natural selection, it matters not how fast the prey can run in the example, or if he is old or sick, it matters only if the predator can see them. We see many animals in the world that rely solely on camouflage for protection. Mice use both camouflage and speed, a mice will run from a predator as far as it can, for obvious reasons, again attributed to evolution. A mouse placed in a box has nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. The natural environment of the mouse and the snake is not replicated, and thus the experiment is seriously flawed. Had the animals been released into a large field, fenced in and known to be empty otherwise, it is far more likely that the snake will catch the old and sick mouse than the young and healthy one. But this is not natural selection anyhow, unless the old mouse had a genetic predisposition to become sick. The sick mouse can not be said to be "poorly adapted" to it’s environment per se, but simply old. Should one re-conduct this experiment with two colonies of mice, one which is a little faster ON AVERAGE or more closely resembles the background camouflage ON AVERAGE, we would indeed see natural selection at work, pretty soon (over the period of a few dozen generations) the faster or better camouflaged mice will far outnumber the poorly camouflaged or slow mice. This is how natural selection works. Not by targeting old and weak mice. In fact, after an organism procreates, it matters not what happens to the organism in the terms of evolution. It is completely irrelevant. The genes and the information contained therein have already been sent to the following generation.

What is meant by "survival of the fittest"?

As I relayed above, "Survival of the fittest" should be re written as "probable survival of the best adapted" When a mouse resembles the ground that it runs on, or the rock that it hides in, or the bushes that it climbs in, it is far better adapted than a plain old white mouse. The white mouse being easily spotted by predators in the area, it is much easier to catch and eat if it is much easier to see. The camouflaged mouse is more likely to survive because it is better adapted. This is what natural selection is. But don’t just take my word for it…

search on "natural selection"

Adaption and Evniroment

Adapting to the environment is a key concept in evolution and the role of natural selection in evolution. Within all animals there is variation, among humans there is plenty of variation, from skin color to blood type to body type to the rate at which one processes calories. All of these are variables which are different from person to person, which is why they are refereed to as variation. The patterns on the fur of cats are subjected to variation. If, for some reason, all cats were thrown into a closed and wooded environment, and in it was released the most vicious of cat predators, the cats colored least like the environment, on average, would be captured and eaten much more frequently than other which resemble the environment more. Soon, nearly all of the light colored cats would be gone, the vast majority of the population colored much closer to the background of trees and underbrush. Over many many generations, the new cats left that resembled the environment the least are captured and eaten. In some time, the only cats the remain, for the most part, are the ones that resemble the environment the most. Soon, the slowest of these gets weeded out, captured and eaten. Then all that is left is the fastest and best camouflaged of the cats. This group of cats has always existed, and have been procreating from generation to generation, there numbers always increasing, but the other cats, who were easier to spot and slower to flee, numbers dwindled more and more, until that fast and camouflaged cats were the only ones left. This is what is meant by adaptation to the environment.

Something exactly like this has happened before, except instead of the cats being thrust into a new environment, the new environment thrust itself upon the cats, and the cats were not cats at all but moths.

The Famous Peppered Moths

Many times, in both evolution and creation circles the examples of the peppered moths are brought up. Just before the industrial revolution in England, many of the trees in the area were white birch trees. A Type of moth, called a peppered moth, liked to rest on these trees. Now, as we know, birch trees are nearly all white, so naturally moths who were white were better hidden from the vicious predators. Just as our camouflaged cats were. Within these moths there were a few stragglers that were dark, much darker then the birch trees. These dark moths were caught more frequently, and thus their numbers were always kept small. However, at the onset of the industrial revolution, a lot of pollution filled the air in England, much of it settled on these white birch trees, turning them brown. Now the previously camouflaged white moths were openly exposed, and the brown moths were now well hidden, soon, within a few generations, the numbers changed drastically, and the vast majority of the moths were now brown, while only a small minority were white. This is an example of what is known as micro-evolution, that is evolution on a smaller scale. But it is evolution none the less, and a very prime example of Natural selection. Had Norbert known of this, he might have thought of a better way to conduct his experiment, which might actually turn up with some verifiable, and repeatable results.

In conclusion, creationists more often then not will complicate or alter a usually simple idea so it would appear to be impossible in their eyes, as long as it does not contradict their sacred beliefs.

Matus