Preamble

Students:
Parents:
School Board Members:
State Education Officials:
Ask your professors/teachers/education officials/book suppliers to explain the detailed contradictions with accepted evolutionary theory which are presented in this article. If they cannot, ask them why they are not presenting similar arguments in their sylabuses/textbooks. Note that no Creationist ideas are contained in the article. It deals strictly with the science of evolution. At the bottom is a list of claims made in this article. They are all falsifiable, and can be refuted point by point, if such aarguments exist.

SYNOPSIS
This page explores what might be called the most fundamental belief in all of biological science, namely, whether or not  the concepts contained in the terms "Natural Selection" (NS) and/or "Survival of the Fittest" (SOTF) are, either separately or together, a scientific explanation for evolution. These two terms have been chosen for discussion not only because they launched "Darwinism" to the preeminent theory it has become, but also because of the almost universal use of them and all their derivatives, in biology books and particularly textbooks.
Both of these terms are used almost interchangeably as the foundation of Darwin's theory of evolution, and have been, from the original publication in 1859, through to the present day.
While no argument is made of the status of "evolution" it is assumed throughout this paper that evolution is not a proven fact, contrary to another fundamental belief of evolutionists; however, the possibility of some sort of evolution is not ruled out either, the question being not germane to this discussion. If you are of the opinion that evolution is a proven fact, this entire topic has to be considered as erroneous.
While a little off-topic to the overall discussion, a paragraph near the end  explains how the Malthusian theory really fits into the idea of evolution.
In a closing paragraph, predictions made using Darwin's theory are proposed and studied in attempt to test the theory.

CONCLUSION
It is shown that the process of reason that concludes that NS is a proper explanation is faulty, in actuality a process which is properly called  "inverse logic".  It is also shown that  the term SOTF, even if not a tautology (by some stretch of the imagination) is not a meaningful explanation for evolution, since the organisms that survive are not in fact, the "fittest" by any standard. Thus, there is as yet, no scientific explanation for the phenomenon known as "evolution", and  Darwin's theory explains only simple adaptation to a variety of extant conditions, as opposed to the nearly universal claim that it explains the "cause" of evolution. The scientific cause of evolution, if it even exists, is currently (1999) unknown to science. His theory is in fact a prescription for mono-specificity, and cannot explain the diversity so evident in the biological world.
It is also suggested that the rote learning of evolutionary theory may be harmful to the development of the formation of the logical process of thought, particularly in the young.
Likewise it is concluded that the "Malthusian" concept is responsible for stasis rather than playing any part in "evolution" - just another example of the inverse logic of the Darwinists.
In closing, several predictions made on the basis of the theory have, fortunately, not come true.
 

PREMISES  AND DEFINITIONS
There is little point in proceeding in this discussion w/o defining terms, meanings, suppositions and all other aspects of the thesis. Far too much of the discussion of this topic is carried out in an attempt to prove/disprove various aspects of  what is generally called "Darwin's Theory", and because of a failure of the above, nothing meaningful is accomplished. Thus the following meanings are established: ⁽¹⁾  (see below)
 

Historical Background

Darwin's feelings about NS and evolution
Charles Darwin felt strongly that observations made on large scale explorations such as his voyage on the Beagle showed conclusively that many clearly different organisms, animals as well as plants, were related to one another by some as yet unknown law. In other words, evolution existed. This belief differed with the then current Biblical based system in that these differences were a result of deliberate Creation as described in the Bible. Darwin understood this as did many others, and after years of study he proposed as an analogy for the operation of evolution, the well known method of "Artificial Selection" whereby characteristics of living organisms can be selected by breeders to produce altered characteristics of a species. In his proposal, the action of "natural" processes takes over as the "intelligence" formerly attributed to the Creator and now does the "selection". His now famous book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" published first in 1859, outlined how a purely natural process of selection could produce similar effects, and thus explain the development of new species without reference to supernatural intervention.
 
The meaning of NS as originally used by Darwin
As kind of an aside, in the book "Origins", Darwin used a strange, rather disingenuous method of introducing the term NS to the reader. It is labeled disingenuous because it is a technique used often by mystery writers to enhance the suspense connected with the effort, and the last place it should be used is in an essay on a scientific subject. He takes you through a full three chapters of the book, hinting at a definition based solely on the effects of the as yet unexplained process, all the while lauding the properties of  NS,  suggesting a scenario which virtually guarantees that the definition, once it is made, will be accepted. Then, in chapter four, he defines what has been called "the most important concept in biology" in a mere 27 words:

"This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, (adding in a later edition) or the Survival of the Fittest."

Darwin's backpedalling on NS
Darwin's book went through 6 editions in about a dozen years, and he had abandoned the term NS (but not the concept) after the fourth edition. In his own words, the term "Survival of the Fittest"

"is more accurate and is sometimes equally convenient." (em. added)

"...we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation;- perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames." (em. added) , (which is absolutely none),

Some fallacies of NS - The  concept of  natural selection as an extension of artificial selection.
On the surface, the comparison is plausible, and was likely more so in Darwin's time, when nothing was known about genetics or cell biology. In our current state of knowledge however, it should be understood that the characteristics which can be so easily manipulated by artificial selection are simply what could be called "existing traits" - alleles -  of an organism, and there is agreement that no new genetic material is produced by this process. Likewise, selection by an intelligent being is done with a particular outcome as a goal; judgment, experience and corrections are made in the process. "Natural" selection is in reality a response to an "effect", the only "choice" possible being a preprogrammed response of an organism. It was termed "selection" solely in an attempt to rationalize the idea of an intelligent act. No goal or purpose is possible. There is no connection between the two mechanisms (assuming of course that NS exists in any form).

The "post hoc propter hoc" aspect of NS and evolution
The belief in evolution itself, even without an explanation for the "law" or "mechanism" which explains it, is here termed a "post hoc propter hoc" belief (literally after this [therefore] because of this - a logical fallacy) for three reasons:

The real meaning of NS
Since there are thousands of books written on the subject of evolution and many of them have a proprietary definition of NS, the concept will be discussed as defined below. Thus, in the process of increasing complexity of organisms, whatever factor that makes the choice for success in the trial and error process is what has "directed" the development of the organism. This was Darwin's original concept (NS), as above, which was abandoned by him, but this very same concept nonetheless is still used today as a rational explanation for evolution. But the concept is nothing but an erroneous technique of logic sometimes called "inverse reasoning" which mistakes cause for effect and thus "explains" the exact reverse of what is happening. Ironically, Darwin's compatriot Alfred Wallace understood this process very well, and his description of it is one of the best and most succinct available. Wallace stated:

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."  (em., [brackets], added)
(unidentified  "Species Notebook", p 43.) Probably 1854-55. From H. Lewis McKinney's Book "Wallace and NS"

• Slums are the cause of poverty.
• Guns are the cause of crime.
• My car won't start in the rain.

But a detailed, disciplined, look at NS will show that the concept cannot be the cause of any direction of development; rather NS is only an effect which can be available for the continuing existence of a organism which is able to use the effects. This is equally true even in the case of predation as in Kettlewell's experiment (below), where the effect is camouflage. The ability to use these effects and more importantly to sustain a direction of development such as the eye, immune system, or the complexity or the eukaryotic cell, for millions of years, is a property of a developing genome, not a property of the "conditions of life". Darwin's second assessment, as above, requoted here, is correct:

"...we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation;- perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames." (em. added)  {which is none - DT}

The Detailed Operation of NS; Kettlewell's Experiment
One other factor should be kept in mind in the consideration of NS. According to the theory, each and every living organism existing at this very instant, and all of its forbears, (billions upon billions of each species) has to have been naturally selected by the process of survival of the fittest, (but for the minutely few selected by man). The vast majority are descendants of "stable" genomes and, if Darwin's (New Synthesis) theory were correct, a nearly infinitesimal number would carry new genetic material accounting for evolution.
How is the latter type of NS of new genetic material (which causes evolution) different from the former (non-evolutionary) type of NS which has to have operated to produce the nearly infinite number, by comparison, of the other organisms that have existed but not "evolved"?

The fact is, there is no difference at all.

What has occurred in each and every case has been adaptation of the organism, which is solely a characteristic, or capability, of the genome (phenotype in the individual), not a selection of any action of the environment or conditions.
Otherwise, it might just as sensibly be said, that the size, location and other features of the Grand Canyon or the Himalayas are also a product of selection. The term is therefore meaningless. It does nothing to explain the increased complexity with which Darwin's theory is credited.

Kettlewell's famous experiments with the moth are (or were) accepted by the biological community with glee, in that they seemingly showed NS actually at work, a verification of the theory, for the first time. The account was given wide attention throughout the literature, much the same as the Piltdown Man Hoax, and from a related scientific field, the Margaret Mead Hoax. (It should be noted that Kettlewell's work is still cited in biology texts as an example of NS, despite the fact that it has really been discredited. Biology, Raven and Johnson, 2nd ed., e.g. describes the process as "evolutionary" and "a result of NS".)
Little argument can be had with the fact that Kettelwell showed some type of "selection" to be operating in nature, but the conclusion that it exemplifies the cause of evolution is clearly erroneous. The  moths (Biston Betularia) simply displayed an adaptation to surroundings, similar to mimicry, a trait of virtually all organisms. Later review suggests possible reaction to the sulfur/other contaminants/ and this possibility, along with others, is seemingly not considered, in the unscientific explanation found in textbooks.
This hasty conclusion is based strictly on a prior belief in evolution. In any event, the cause of the change in the moth was not "selection" but rather the ability of the organism (above) to adapt. By switching cause with effect, a hitherto unexplainable phenomenon is thus understood.
In the case of the car (above) that won't start because of the rain, the real cause of the failure to start is a defect in the ignition system, not the rain, which defect would show up under other conditions such as high humidity, or the operation of a car wash.
If some form of evolution exists, either through a preordained plan (as Alfred Wallace and others believe) or some as-yet undiscovered ability of the genome to reorient itself, it is not as a result of "selection" but rather only made possible by the effects of the selection (= survival), and is adaptation. The action is one of the organism. The cause is unknown. An attempt will be made to illustrate this cause/effect relationship as it occurs in the concept of NS, by a hypothetical scenario.

The Natural Selection Machine
It is 100 years hence, around the year 2100, when an enterprising chap applies for a patent on a machine which produces food of the very same type we are used to eating. It is similar in a way to the mythical "horn of plenty", Cornucopia. The ingredients for food, the necessary mineral elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., are added to the device, and from the "horn" spews forth apples, bananas, peaches, pears vegetables of all sorts and other food items. (Note that this is an amazing discovery, because at present, humans are incapable of "making" any edible food.)
Quite obviously, the secret of the molecular process used by organisms has been harnessed. But while this is truly amazing, another facet of the machine is even more amazing. It has some of the abilities of the kind we attribute today, to Darwinian NS, in that it seems to be able to choose, by itself, which products will be produced.
The trigger for this remarkable action is dependent on the input to the machine, but not in the way you might first suppose. For example, if the machine is producing too many bananas, say, the operator simply feeds these excess items back into the machine and voila! the number of bananas is reduced, and productions of other items increased. The machine thus has a conservative nature, because nothing is wasted. The world is of course, astonished.
But let us control our astonishment for the time being, and investigate the latter feature of the machine, the ability to self-alter it's own output. The characteristic is very similar to the assumed "action" of NS as held by Darwinists, from the standpoint that some form of "evolution" seems to be occurring. It appears that when the machine encounters certain situations in the environment in which it operates, its basic method of operation is altered in some way. (This would be the type of machine proposed by Wallace [above] - we don't know how it works. {By the way, if you think this scenario is simplistic, read Dawkins' book about 'Mount Improbable'.})
In any event, we can now ask the all-important question: what is the cause of the alteration of the output of the machine??? If you have answered "the change in the input to the machine", you are a candidate for belief in Darwin's NS. It is not caused by the change in input to the machine rather the real scientific cause of the change is the capability of the machine to sense the input, and make changes to the output, by a method which we don't understand. We have, as in Wallace's machine above, vainly grasped the first relationship observed, and picked an effect as a cause. (Note that while it is true that no output changes occur unless there are input changes, that is, input changes are a necessary condition for output changes, they - like the water for the corn - are only necessary, not causal. In the same way, NS is necessary for survival, but is not the cause of evolution, if such even exists.) This is precisely one of the errors of Darwinism. Another is more clearly pointed out in the discussion which is continued below, on SOTF.

"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." From Darwin's book, "Origins". (Note that the word "metaphorically" was added in later editions, to deflect criticism.)

The Real Meaning of SOTF
The term SOTF is a phrase that describes the outcome of a competition where there is no possibility or even probability (such as can be done in game theory) of predicting the outcome in advance because of the complexity of the conditions of the competition. By its very nature it is a tautology, regardless of the situation in which it is used. It describes only the effect, or outcome, of an event and the cause must be investigated separately. For example, if it were used to describe the outcome of an auto race such as the Indy 500 (one of the premier 500 mile races in the USA), using the term "It will be survival of the fittest" would indicate that the victor would be unknown until the end of the race. Likewise, if discussing the survival of a  business in a collapsing economy or perhaps the survival of a race of people during the fierce competition of a war, use of the term SOTF would indicate that nothing would be known about the outcome until the end of the particular event. Herbert Spencer used the term to describe the result of some of his socio-political theories (Social Darwinism) on the struggle for human existence, during Darwin's day, in an attempt to explain the cause of the events. 

The Perceived Meaning of SOTF
SOTF was originally used by Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin's and its use was urged upon Darwin by both Spencer and Wallace as a better, more descriptive, explanation of the mechanism by which evolution occurred, as compared with NS. The term, in and of itself, contains an implicit assumption that survivors are an improved form of organism compared to those which do not survive. Spencer had this belief. Such of course is not the case, and there is no intent here to state that any thinking biologist, Darwin included, believed this to be true. (However, his florid terminology suggests this and when introduced to young students, still learning the process of logic, the meaning will be little other than that. This is particularly true when the operation of a tautology is not properly understood; thus to a certain portion of individuals the term itself is an explanation for evolution.)
And in fact, the term itself summons up a vision of continual incremental improvement in an object such as a car, watch, or other artifact made by man, as it is often used this way. Alternately, any process performed over and over is likewise subject to trial and error for the purpose of improvement, and for example, the recipe for a loaf of bread would possibly be perfected by this means. (Note that in every such case, intelligence is applied in the improvements).
Not so however is this true in the field of biological reproduction. There is no human intelligence available to weed out the defectives and alter the process toward a more desirable end. Here, SOTF is far more likely to mean less complexity, and a simpler organism, since a change in conditions of existence is far more likely to require adaptability in the genome which is unavailable. Thus the survivors are (of course) the fittest, but in this case a far simpler organism such as bacteria. There is little doubt that one of the great mysteries of biological history, the demise of the Dinosaurs, was a routine application of the concept of SOTF, where the fittest were some form of bacteria. It goes without saying that this outcome is not envisioned as a form of evolution that is intended to be described by Darwin's theory. Yet a look at the fossil record shows that something like 99% of the survivors were simpler organisms. So once again, as in the case of the term NS, a detailed look at a Darwinian process shows an entirely unlikely outcome from that outlined by the theory.
Even so, in temporary defense of the theory, it should be pointed out that the fact that even 99.99% of survivors are simpler organisms, this fact is no proof (except possibly statistically) that the survivors we know about today are not the 0.01% of survivors that are more fit from a complexity standpoint and thus prove the methodology of the theory. But another avenue of logic will be presented to show conclusively that such is not the case.

Discussion of the "Fittest". What is it?
Of all the barbs thrown at the concept of Darwin's theory, probably none is more prevalent than the claim that the term SOTF is a tautology; of all the defenses of the theory, explanations of how and why it is not are likewise probably the most numerous. Darwin himself tried to give explanations of the term "fittest" in such a way that they did not appear to be synonymous with the word "survival". For example, he stated:

"Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny."
Darwin's book, "Origins".

"Statistically, those animals that are the most fit for survival will create the population of descendants whose characteristics will eventually come to dominate the genome."

The Very "Fittest"
If it is speculated that the term "fittest" refers to an organism which has the best capability for acquiring, holding, and using all available nutrients, all the while developing or having a capability of fending off physical threats to its existence, this concept would indeed be an explanation for a certain possible type of organism. For example, if marine coral were an interconnected integrated organism, with a need for correct functioning of all of its parts to maintain the existence of the whole, it could be called a "fittest" organism, in its own right, without the reference to "survivorship" to determine its fitness. There are many coral deposits throughout the world, some which are immense in size, (such as the  body of coral which is currently the State of Florida, USA) but unfortunately, marine coral is really not an organism, per se, but rather a collection of organisms. Since there are really no such organisms in existence as described above, it must be concluded that this is not what the "fittest" is, in the sense of Darwin's meaning.

Limited Fitness
The meaning of the word "fitness" as contained in SOTF can only be construed as the organism fitter than other members of organisms falling into a special group such as a species, not, as above, the very fittest organism in the universe.
This is consistent with the descriptions used by Darwin and also used by most evolutionists in the explanation offered for the mechanism of evolution. (Note that there is no consideration here of the meaning of the term as used by geneticists or population ecologists).

While the term "best" is about as ambiguous, if it is understood as meaning those organisms within a group, such as a species, most capable of adapting to extant conditions such that they survive, it does describe a characteristic of the organism, unfortunately, after the fact. It is therefore, using this description as a definition for the characteristics of survivors, possible to study known survivors, kind of in a "reverse engineering" sort of way, and see if they are in some manner "the best" which would make them the "fittest".

The Mighty Oak. (Family Quercus) Is it the fittest?
Trees have been around for about 300 million years. It therefore must be assumed that each species currently living, having survived either in its present form or (allowing evolution) evolved form, must represent the fittest form of its species. If Darwin's theory is correct, it is so unlikely as to be impossible that after this period of time there could be any defective characteristic in a species such as for example, the mighty Oak. If physical characteristics of the Oak such as its size, shape, strength, and reproductive capacity are studied one should find that it is impossible make any improvements in any of them, after a perhaps 100 million year period of becoming the "fittest". It would have to be considered the best. So when studying for example, its reproductive capacity and noticing that this method is what appears to be a very inefficient system, it is obvious that something is wrong in either the premise (that it is the fittest) or the conclusion (that the reproductive system) is inefficient.
The method of reproduction of the oak involves the production of an acorn, a fertilized seed rounded or oblong in shape about 1/2 inch (12 mm.) in diameter which drops from the tree after maturity. This seed, if by some means covered by soil, if all else goes well, produces offspring. In and of itself, this system works well, as oaks are very plentiful throughout compatible portions of the planet, but when compared with other seed reproduction systems it is indeed nothing but archaic.
A look at the simple dandelion, shows a seed dispersal system far more efficient by at least several orders of magnitude, than that of the Oak. The same is true of course for some other trees, such as the Willow and the Cottonwood.
Thus, it is difficult to imagine Darwin's theory being at work here, constantly weeding out those trees which produce large, very costly (in the competitive sense) seeds, in favor of those trees which produce smaller and smaller seeds with a marvelous dispersal system such as the Dandelion. It seems that in a matter of only several hundred thousand years the actions of continuously choosing "the fittest" by the Darwinian process would produce the rather trivial (by comparison) changes necessary to make the Oak and all of its characteristics, the "fittest" in every respect. (Note that while the Oak may be "more fit" in comparison to other trees, it still must compete with those of its own species for survival, and thus the requirement of Darwinian fitness would be imposed). The fact that other trees have supposedly evolved to this condition makes the situation even more inexplicable, to the extent that the basic premise, namely that "survival of the fittest" works at all, is unavoidably called  into question. But if this situation is truly unexplainable in reference to Darwin's theory, let us look at other, similar, situations which also need explanation.

The Fruit Fly. Is it the Fittest?
A quick look in the animal kingdom shows the rapidly reproducing Fruit Fly, (about 2 weeks per generation) with a serious deficiency, that being the inability to penetrate the skin of even the thinnest of fruit, and thus release the sugars which begin the process which produces their food. These mechanisms/processes are available in thousands of organisms, both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Boring mechanisms, such as in the mosquito, stingers, such as in the bee/wasp, or a dissolving fluid such as produced by other insects abound in nature. It is absolutely inexplicable in the Darwinian sense, that some device or method of doing this would fail to be developed over the past eons of their existence. It thus must be concluded that while they are survivors, they are not the fittest. Darwin's theory cannot explain  it.
In all there are estimated to be at least 5 million different species, only about 1/3 of them having been catalogued. With each species having hundreds of physical characteristics required for survival, we have a right to expect that each one of them, with perhaps a few explainable exceptions, are the fittest. As can easily be seen by reference to two of the most common species, they are not. Darwin's theory has not explained the existing spectrum of living organisms either in the initial development from the mineral state or in the highly developed state in which it exists today.

A Broader View
It must be concluded that Darwin's theory (and all derivatives) is nothing more than a prescription for mono-specificity. Over the eons since the Cambrian Explosion, organisms could not maintain the unique characteristics we see today, if they were constantly evolving to a "fittest" condition. Instead of squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks, skunks, groundhogs, raccoons, and the most improbable 200 million year old opossum there would be one genus filling this niche, with several variants no different than the breeds of dogs. Why hasn't this happened? No one knows. Likewise, if the oak had a distribution system as sophisticated as (say) the cottonwood or the dandelion, would there be any other types of trees? Darwin's theory cannot explain why this has not happened. An obvious conclusion is that all the species that are known today are in reality, more like artifacts, whose characteristics have been limited by some process unknown to science.

A word about Malthus
The fact that both Darwin and Wallace cite the "Malthusian" concept often described as the "struggle for existence" as the foundation for their theories is considered to be one of the great coincidences in the field of Science. (In actuality, it may not be a coincidence at all since there is growing belief that Darwin's contribution to the theory occurred only after his reading of Wallace's "Ternate" paper, in 1858). In any event, given even that Darwin's theory is correct, the concept has nothing to do with the "cause" of evolution, rather it would affect only the "speed" or rate of same. If evolution proceeds on a "trial and error" basis, the Malthusian concept increases the number of trials, and that is all.
However, the concept is immensely important to the outcome of the biological process in that it weeds out the defectives from a population, kind of a "quality control" process, and thus insures the stability of the genome, which process is the exact opposite of evolution. The concept is one of the stability of diversity, not one of the cause of diversity. Note here again, the inverse logic involved.
(We can be thankful for this process because without it, this planet would be full of deformed, dying, and dead organisms, as opposed to the marvelous order currently evident. Bacteria, by far the most prolific predators and seldom if ever recognized as such by biologists, are chiefly responsible for this order.  Once again, nothing in evolutionary theory explains or accounts for this order.)

Some Darwinian Predictions
The very hallmark of a theory of any kind, is the ability to explain hitherto unknown processes and thus enable the prediction of actions which may be under study. It has been noted by many critics of Darwinism, that predictions based on the theory are not possible, and many defenses are made, likewise, of this charge.
But in reality, if the theory is properly understood, predictions can be made even though no one living today will live to see the outcome of a prediction. There is nothing however, which can prevent speculation about what "might/should have been" according to the theory, and then comparing current reality with what is concluded.
Thus, the DT will speculate about certain species which could reasonably be expected to have evolved, assuming of course that the theory is at all sound.
Regarding the Oak tree above, the query has already been made as to the unexplainable limitation of its reproductive capability. It is very hard to see how, if the Oak had developed a first rate reproduction system such as the type used by bacteria or mushrooms, (with appropriate differences of course) that there would be such a variety of other plants in existence. Oaks, like many trees, have the ability to prevent the growth of other plants for a considerable distance around the perimeter, and it is most likely that they would become the dominant vegetation. Fruit trees, flowers, grasses and myriad other plant life might be virtually nonexistent. To say that the consequences of this would be remarkable, is a gross understatement.
Again, if the Fruit Fly had acquired the ability to penetrate the skin of most fruit, the results would be equally disastrous.

But things could be worse. There is a wide open niche in the world of mammals, (as there is in many other areas) for attack by a predator from the air. Vampire bats fill this niche to a very limited degree, as they obtain blood in a kind of hit-and-miss mode.
Let us suppose that another bat-like animal had honed it's predatory capability to where it really was the fittest, and developed a venom-based attack system, not unlike that found in snakes. Further let us assume that the fluid it used (being the fittest) would paralyze the largest of mammals, allowing the bats to feed at will for a long period of time, similar to the way that wasps provide for their young  (note that all the elements to accomplish this are available in many forms throughout existing organisms - thus the changes would be trivial).
This development would be the death knell for the mammalian species as it exists today, including mankind, had it occurred. Obviously it hasn't. How to explain this in the Darwinian sense? There is no explanation. Things don't work that way. The theory is wrong.
 
Fallacious Theories : the Lucy Principle
Beliefs die hard, and for many reasons. Darwin's theory explains to a believer what is probably the greatest mystery of the universe, perhaps even greater than the mystery of the origin of matter, space and time. It is a Godsend to atheists, and agnostics. Those who work in the field of biology must derive great satisfaction from the belief, in that they are working in a field that is well understood, albeit the minor gaps which are not yet explainable. Once a decision or position has been taken on a subject, it is seldom reversed. Witness the decision made by Alfred Wallace. Wallace made the decision for "natural selection" (not  using this phrase) in his Ternate Paper, the idea having come to him during a delirium produced by Malaria. He never budged from this position during his lifetime. This was against his explicit understanding of the "cause/effect" reversal which is quoted (above) in the web page.

An example of why beliefs are hard to shed is exemplified by a memorable episode in the comic strip "Peanuts", in a discussion between Charley Brown and Lucy; Lucy looks skyward and says "Charley, did you ever notice that clouds make words? Charley looks up and says to her, "Lucy, that is skywriting". Lucy looks up and says "yes, but sometimes clouds do make words."

⁽¹⁾PREMISES  AND DEFINITIONS
Darwin's Theory: a scientific theory that explains the development, from the basic fundamental properties of the elements in the periodic table, of all the diverse living organisms in the universe, by a process that is random in its entirety. Of necessity it denies the need for miraculous intervention of any kind, but does not, except by implication, rule it out. It includes at least four (4) variations of the theory beginning with the first publication of his book "Origins" to the most recent theory often called "The New Synthesis". While often called the "Darwin/Wallace theory", this term is not strictly correct, since Wallace allows for a type of "spiritual intervention" not accepted by true Darwinists, and omitted, if not denied, in Darwin's "Origins".

NS: The term originally used by Darwin to explain the causal mechanism which is responsible for the operation of his theory. In scientific, and to some extent lay circles it replaced the idea that "Creation" was the causal mechanism. Darwin later abandoned this term in favor of the term SOTF. The term NS is important because it is currently used by virtually all biologists as the explanation for the mechanism originally intended by Darwin, in spite of his essential retraction. As above, this discussion shows that the term is not only meaningless, but in fact is a logical inversion of what actually occurs in organic reproduction..

SOTF: The term adopted by Darwin to explain the mechanism of NS after the  criticism received from so many of his peers. According to Darwin the term "is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient". This discussion shows that the concept of the term is, independently, both erroneous and circular.

Evolution: a process of development of living organisms which has the capability to increase the complexity of them, from the very first prokaryotic cell through to the development of the most complex of living organisms, by a trial and error process. This process is undirected by any method other than the fact of the success or failure of those organisms, which has been directed by the process called NS/SOTF.

⁽²⁾ The Five Senses Hypothesis
This is an unstated belief system which underlies the study of all the physical sciences. The most important of these beliefs is that all phenomena in the universe are capable of being measured, or acknowledged, by one of the five senses of man. There are no forces or actions of any kind which ultimately will not be discovered and recognized by these senses. Thus, there cannot be a Creator, miracles, conceptual thought, and many other phenomena, which are entirely possible and routinely believed in by the great majority of people.
Under this belief system, all the activities of man are thus a process of simple animal behavior, which will (hopefully) someday be understood in natural terms. (Note that a Nobel prize is never given for a theoretical inquiry of the type made famous by Stephen Hawking, rather it is bestowed only when a theory has been "proven" by demonstration to one of the five senses, by experiment.)
This aspect of scientific belief is most appropriately termed "naturalism". It is  really a concept of Philosophy, and is considered by evolutionists, to be, like evolution itself, a "fact".
Without an understanding of this hypothesis, the process of scientific investigation contains an assumption, which might be called a "hidden agenda".
In order to properly understand the limits of scientific thinking, the basic assumptions must be acknowledged.
This entire concept is termed a "hypotheses" because there is no proof whatsoever for it, and as long as there is one outstanding Question, (about anything in the field of science) there will never be; more correctly, it should be termed a "speculation", and in reality it is probably, for many scientists, a Hope.
One would think that the very first item on the agenda in Science Studies, perhaps in the very early grades, would be an explanation of this hypothesis and the ramifications of it explained and discussed. It ought to be noted that to evolutionists, there is no objection to Philosophy being a part of Science, and the fact that it is absolutely unthinkable to them that Religion be a part of it only shows a bias of the same sort that keeps Darwin's theory alive.