We can see from the above observations that the two themes of variation and environment are interrelated. However, a third theme exists and is present in nature.
The predominance of one variety is a theme itself both within a single species and between the varieties of species that exist. As was seen with the ant earlier the predominance of the features of an individual was brought about by a change in environment. The predominance of an individual species is also achieved by a change in environment, or put another way, by a change in the predominant features of the environment.
We can see that the predominant species living on earth is - Mankind. A favourable global environment has made this possible. Within mankind the struggle for predominance by one race over another has been the pursuit of all generations in history and is plainly evident today. However, in retrospect, we can see that it has been the environment which dictated who predominated.
The human head lice is said to be capable of living only on humans. This is not strictly true. Although it is predominantly true, a certain number of individual head lice show their preference for a different host. When the opportunity arises those individuals avail themselves of the new host and by this means the species survives. It is safe to say that lice that normally reside on a dog can spread to humans by this means. They may look species specific but over all they are not. This is true for many other forms of creature.
The observations contained in natural selection have nothing to do with the origin of species but rather with the survival of species that already exist. Evolution asserts that a creature or plant endures by becoming a different creature or plant. Natural selection asserts that a creature or plant survives through variation while remaining the same species.
Small Pox is said to have been eradicated from the human population but a variant exists in other creatures. Therefore, should the environment favour it, small pox will re-infest the human population.
The Lion population is predominated by flesh eaters. Some infants are born that can not digest flesh or its bi-products such as mothers milk. These few individuals soon perish as sickly animals. Should a change in the environment favour it the flesh eaters will perish and the vegetarians will predominate being the only variety able to survive. Should this happen then some offspring will be sickly individuals too because they will be unable to digest vegetation and its bi-products. Throughout all this the species survives. It is the same species.
The evidence for this is that a species can revert. The peppered moth may undergo colour changes in response to environmental changes but those changes are reversible. Clearly the species remains the same while its surface features alter. There is no new species evolving here rather one species surviving through variation.
Greater care should be taken when defining species. There are fewer differences between Galapagos finches than between an Alsatian and a Dachshund. The domestic dog looks unimpressive and colourless yet hides within all the diversity of the many breeds. There are enough differences between an Alsatian and a Pekinese to say they are separate species and the fact that they breed true is further evidence. Yet in spite of all this evidence we know that they are not separate species, but the same. We also know that if left to mate without intervention within just a few generations they would revert to their original form. No matter how much a species is cultivated it will always revert to the original form. Further and most importantly we know that the process can be repeated. If we exterminated every existing Alsatian the breed may be extinct but the species, Dog, survives and the Alsatian can be brought back. In a human context Africans and Innuits are not thought of a different species despite appearing quite different and their breeding true.
Exotic locations are not necessary to observe this, it can be seen in an English garden. The various Tit populations are listed as separate species when in fact they are the same species that has diversified. The Great Tit may become extinct but the Tit species survives and can diversify again. In human cultivation back breeding is used to produce diversity, in nature the same process is achieved through near extinction.
Diversity is regularly misunderstood as producing new species. In humans, of the millions of eggs produced only a dozen or so become progeny, an almost invisibly small number by comparison. In birds many more eggs become progeny. In fish nearly all eggs become progeny. The Cichlid of Africa's Lake Victoria occur in over four hundred varieties. There are three main reasons for this. Firstly the egg progeny ratio. Secondly the absence of predators at the time of diversification and thirdly, back breeding. Another factor that contributes to diversity is that with birds, insects and some reptiles the egg producer carries the Y chromosome.
A single male and female Cichlid pair enter a newly formed lake which lacks predators. Because there is just the two of them to begin with back breeding is inevitable. Then their egg progeny ratio is very high.
Evolution says that if the environment changes, a creature or plant will develop new limbs or organs to enable it to survive the changes and they will, in the passage of some considerable time, become a different creature or plant with long extinct ancestors. The three themes tell us that every variation of a species already exists while a particular individuals combination of features predominates. A change in the environment merely brings a change as to which individual’s features will predominate the species. The species is the same, the ancestors features are not extinct - they will exist among the total population. All plants and animals gain an individual existence through variation and the principle of inheritance. Parental features are bequeathed – there is no other source. A creature cannot develop a new limb or organ unless the genetic information to do so already exists.
Evolutionary theory today is quite a different creature to what it was 150 years ago when Darwin proposed it. The work of people like Mendel and Watson and Crick was nowhere to be seen in Darwin’s theory and yet they now feature large. It is worth stating that the scientific observations contained in natural selection are irrefutable but they have nothing to do with the origin of species. They are to do with the survival of species that already exist.
The Red Spider Mite populated fruit trees for many hundreds of years living off the lichens that grow on bark. When tar washes were introduced to control over wintering pests the lichen perished. The Mite survived because some of their number could live on leaves. They then predominated the species. It is the same species of mite though it is now predominated by a different individual's features brought about by a change in environment.
Within each species strategies for survival vary. All strategists survive while one predominates.
Species survive through variation because species are an individual, they are descended from an individual.
Another example of an intuitive idea being wrong is the much vaunted phrase, Survival of the Fittest. It is not, 'survival' of the fittest rather it is, 'predominance' of the fittest.
The un-fittest survive. The fittest one predominates while the un-fittest are diminished. Should the environment change it will favour one of the un-fittest which will then predominate while the former fittest becomes one of the un-fittest.
