A wilderbeist on the African savana will join others to encircle the young in order for them to be protected.
This ,evolutionists argue , is so that the genes that it has given to its young are protected and so this behaviuor is passed on to later generations through its genes.
On the other hand it could be agued that ,still using evolution as our guiding principle, the wilderbeist which gets threatened by a predator would flee from the scene leaving his young as prey but proserving its life in the process.
This would mean that the weilderbeist is more likely to survive and so be able to have more oportunities to have young and so this behaviour should then be passed on to its young.
Another creature that hopes to take advantage of evolution is the impala.
Impalas synchronise their hormonal systems so that they all have young at the same time.
This ,it is argued, means that when predators come there is more of a chance that at least some of them will survive to form the next generation and so pass on these genes.
Conversley the could do the exact opposite and produce young at different times so reducing the probability that a large number would get eaten and so meaning that most of the young could grow into maturity causing them to be more survivable.
My problem with evolution is that its arguements are as weak as those i wrote above .
If both arguments sound convincing and yet one is obviously wrong , couldnt the arguments we use (and are convinced about) in other ,as yet uncontrovercial cases be wrong too?
What do you think?
