Is There a Need to Revisit Evolution?

Evolution is a great theory, I agree. It is the greatest theory in all of science, since it tries to answer one of the most difficult of all questions – Why are we, what we are?

This theory gives a good explanation for much of the pertinent questions concerning life. Essentially, by providing a logical answer to one question, how, the first simplest form of life gave rise to all of the huge diversity we see today. How life appears in various forms from bacteria to oak trees to blue whales.

I have a few questions. What makes our scientists so certain about this? Where is the evidence? Is it like this: Given enough time, these changes mount up and lead to the appearance of new species and new types of organism? Those small, rather imperceptible changes happen continuously?

Can we say, as the first step, few worms became fish? Then some of the fish came onto land and developed four legs, and those four-legged animals grew hair. Some time after, few of them started walking around on two legs, called themselves "humans" and discovered evolution.

Now you see, evolution is not a phenomenon of the past. It is an active process occurring even now. The emergence of new strains of influenza, drug-resistant cancer cells, and pesticide-resistant insects, demonstrate that the genetic makeup of populations changes over time.

Within the population of influenza viruses, for example, some viruses show resistance to the drugs used to treat them. Over a period of time, the resistant viruses survive and reproduce, and new influenza vaccines must be created to treat the newly evolved strain. Another example, of evolution in action, can be seen in laboratory experiments. Using rapidly reproducing species such as bacteria, yeast, and fruit flies, scientists have shown that altering the environmental conditions in which these organisms exist can induce genetic changes within the population.

But, what about humans? What signs can we see here? I think we are looking at humans as another form of life. No, humans differ from all other forms of life. They keep finding problems for themselves, in the shape of solutions to existing problems. This act, what could be loosely termed thinking, effectively, turns human into an altruistic animal.

And we constantly see our ideas and thoughts undergoing transformation continuously. In the visible sphere, this can be most easily felt as fashion. More inclusive aspects of such a change is what keeps our society constantly engaged at any given time. Presently, the attraction we show to everything 'natural', or our predilection with the idea of democracy, can be seen as examples having capability to involve all of humanity. All of which essentially are nothing but wayside stops for evolution?

I have another doubt here. Not all humans subscribe to every new thought, however popular that may become. If we are to think of two categories of humans, one, who welcomes and move with the change, and the other, who oppose such changes tooth and nail, what future shall befall on each? Won’t the progenies, of those who presently oppose all the natural changes to enjoy the prevailing climate of comfort, find themselves grossly out of place with the future? And the successors, of those who accommodate themselves in the agonies of the present, find themselves better equipped for the future?

I have one more doubt. Even when people subscribe to new thoughts, all such ideas does not get the same reception. Some are readily accepted by our society, some might get only lukewarm response, and few others face real opposition. How will this affect our future? If the ideas readily accepted by us now, be of great help, and the ideas we oppose now, be of no significance, there shall not be any reason to worry. But, if it isn’t, which is quite a possibility since one can never know the future significance of an idea now, we are in for trouble. Assuming that ideas are the natural products of human minds, shouldn’t we be giving equal importance to all the thoughts?

There is still another doubt. On what basis are we putting man towards end of evolution? Why can’t the living organisms start with man? Isn’t it more likely that an organism that can do all its functions of life and living, with fewer amounts of hardware, lesser environmental load, and reduced requirements of input, is a later version? Thinking in this way, doesn’t it look more natural for all other forms of life to follow man? Especially, since it is possible to see the lower forms of life as miniature versions of man.

Yes, there is a need to revisit evolution.