Do you realize that this article refutes naturalistic evolution? Thanks for the ammo. ;-)
Good luck with that!
Natural selection is not always about an ascendency in complexity. A species of colourful moth may die out in favour of dull, grey ones, in urban areas, for example.
In “survival of the ‘fittest,’” the word ‘fittest’ is not always referring to physical prowess.
If a lioness mates with a lion with a genetic disability, and if enough of the offspring are viable to out-compete the rest of the gene pool, then that disability becomes an apparent asset. Of course common observation shows us that such a pairing would be significantly disadvantaged, and thus, the genes with the disability, prone to dying out.
But not always. Life is not a one-variable test. It does not do one-word answers, always.
In humans, the scenario is far more complex because of the value most humans have put in creativity over all else. Even here, there are contradictions. If apparently successful mating pairs wilfully curtail their population in terms of the number of offspring they have, then the mating pairs that don’t follow this pattern of reproduction will outbreed the former, and in the end, become the apparently more successful set.
Another factor complicating the human scenario, is socialism. By rewarding the less fortunate, means of elimination by natural selection are rendered void. But since the variables available to tweak human success are so numerous, even these members have a huge scope for improvement and success. Cruel? Of course! However we humans as a species try to curtail cruelty because of our dependence on one-another, thus bringing into play the factor of empathy. A culture that values mindless violence will not be conducive to success.
Life is tested frequently, and often. What we see around us are the results of the tests upto that instant, and not beyond.