Reverse Evolution In Britain

The evolutionary idea of the development of life is that a species will evolve in the direction of being better suited to it's environment because random mutations will occur that will give a member of that species a better chance to survive long enough to pass along it's genes with the beneficial qualities such as better eyesight, faster speed or, more intelligence. Eventually, a new species will eventually emerge that is better suited for survival than the former species because those members with such advantages are more likely to survive long enough to pass along their genes.

The problem is that the more advanced and complex creatures, which should be the best suited for survival in the environment, are NOT better suited for survival. This throws off the primary basis of evolutionary theory.

Britain is the site of one of the favorite (favourite) examples of evolutionary progress. During the days of the Industrial Revolution, it was noticed that as stone buildings in cities became darker due to smoke from factories, white moths became darker in color (colour) over time to better hide from predatory birds. This change occurred because those moths that happened to be born with darker than usual wings were more likely to survive long enough to pass along their genes than those that were not. I consider the example of moths in the Industrial Revolution as an example of adaptation although it does not prove that life evolved without being created by God.

I also notice a prime example of reverse evolution taking place in Britain today. England used to be a hotbed of wolves. But as England's human population increased, wolves went extinct by the year 1500. They hung on in parts of Scotland until about 1750.

Today, Britain has other wildlife issues. About a century ago, gray squirrels from North America were imported to Britain and are now overrunning the countryside, forcing out the native red squirrels. Meanwhile, in London, there are the ever-present pigeons. Despite the ubiquitous signs "Please do not feed the pigeons, they are a health hazard and a nuisance", efforts to control the pigeon population have been just as difficult in London as has the effort to control the gray squirrel population in the countryside.

What about the contradiction that this poses for evolutionary theory? The whole basis of the theory is that species advance by becoming better suited for survival in the environment by random chance. Therefore, the more complex and highly evolved creatures must be better suited for survival or the theory makes no sense. If one species changes into another by random chance and survival, it cannot be that a more highly evolved creature is less suited to survival as a species than a simpler creature. It has to be the other way around if evolutionary theory is correct.

By any biological standard, wolves are a far more complex and advanced creature than are squirrels or pigeons. Indeed, creatures that are primarily prey must have evolved before those that are predators. This means that the food chain of prey and predator is a fairly good approximation of how highly evolved a creature is.

So, if the evolutionary basis of the advancement in species is improvement in suitability and ability to survive in the environment, more complex creatures must be better suited to survival than simpler creatures. So then why was a complex and supposedly highly evolved creature like a wolf unable to survive in England until the year 1500 while the country today is trying all kinds of tactics to control the population of much simpler creatures like squirrels and pigeons?

It should be the other way around if evolutionary theory is correct. Simpler creatures like pigeons and squirrels should have been unable to survive as England's human population increased while the country today should be overrun with wolves, which are more complex and therefore should be better suited to survive.

Evolutionary theory fails to take into account the cataclysms that occur regularly in nature. When this theory was developed in the mid-Nineteenth Century, not as much was known about natural history as we know today. Contrary to traditional evolutionary theory, there is such a thing as being too well-suited to the environment, rendering a species unable to survive when that environment is disrupted in some way.

Plainly and simply, creatures that eat plants are much less likely to be wiped out by cataclysm than the meat-eating predators that feed on them. Even though the predators must be more highly evolved, according to the theory, and should thus be better suited for survival. The best-suited for survival are simple creatures that can live anywhere, eat anything, reproduce quickly and, need little to survive. The creatures that evolutionary theory supposes are better suited for survival are in fact too complex and high-maintainence.

Plants, which are simpler than animals, are far better suited to survival as a species. Traditional evolutionary theory thus cannot be correct, even though the idea of adaptation as illustrated by the example of the moths does have a point. Rather, it makes much more sense to realize that God created the natural environment to function as a whole. He created the higher predators to ensure that the limited number of atoms on earth that are involved in the biosphere continue to circulate.