EVOLUTION AND DETERMINATION

Man is no longer evolving.  Since life originated on Earth, both flora and fauna have been continuously changing.  Darwin came up with the idea that, as many generations of plants and animals succeeded each other over long periods of time, small variations would occasionally crop up.  Some of these mutations enabled the organisms involved to better adapt to their environments.  These modified plants or animals eventually proved better at surviving than the earlier versions.  Over eons, all living things, including man, have evolved through this process to their present configurations.

Viable mutations in growth cells occur randomly and infrequently.  When they do take place, the resulting modifications do not necessarily enhance the chances of remaining alive until offspring are produced.  Missing limbs in humans at birth, or blindness, do not improve the odds of survival.  By contrast, developments such as opposing thumbs, omnivorous appetites, and increased brainpower have led humans to the top of the food chain.

It might be expected that evolutionary changes would transpire gradually and in continuous fashion.  Thus, we should be able to trace, utilizing the hundreds of thousands of years of buried records provided by fossils, the step-by-step modifications that must have taken place to transform ape-like animals into modern man.  The same chain of events should be identifiable for all other forms of life.

In fact, anomalies and discontinuities are rampant.  Some of this can be explained by the fragility of living matter, which leads to gaps in observable data when nature has not cooperated in preserving evidence of prehistoric plants or animals.  More difficult to rationalize are apparent genetic shifts that seem to have occurred over relatively short time spans.  If evolution is truly the result of survival of the fittest, which would take many generations to produce marked changes in organisms, it is strange that, in various instances, new species have appeared almost overnight by evolutionary standards.

Scientists are not comfortable with the idea that plants or animals might be able to sense and genetically respond to aspects of their environments.  Yet it seems plausible to conclude that, between birth and procreation, a living being can improve the odds of survival for subsequent generations in a proactive fashion.  Such a process would lead to accelerated changes in size, form and coloration.  Under this scenario, it would not be necessary for tens of thousands of years to elapse before a new species develops.