Natural selection takes a long time, I get the whole Darwinian principle but when the issues are multiple and man made the odds are against survival.
It's like saying the Dodo should have evolved the ability to fly when man was eating them all then they would have been okay, evolution takes a lot of time and cannot be achieved overnight, saying in this case only the strongest will survive is ludicrous as the losses may be too great to recover.
A small correction - Darwinism is not about the 'strongest' surviving, it's about the 'fittest' surviving. Being 'fitter' than the competition could - for example - involve having higher intelligence, or having a better form of camouflage to avoid predation.
It's worth bearing in mind that Darwinism is a theory, and one with lots of 'holes' in it. It's a plausible theory when considering (say) the longer tail-length of a fish, which might help it to swim faster and thus evade predation, so that increased numbers of longer-tailed fish then survive to breed, and eventually whose numbers eclipse those of shorter-tailed fish.
But although Darwin's theory works reasonably well when considering such a gradual development (rendering that species increasingly 'fitter' as the process proceeds), it falls over badly when considering abrupt physiological changes such as the initial development of wings, for example. Until wings are fully functional, along with the required muscles, controlling nerves and a higher nervous system to provide the necessary coordination, a 'wing-in-development' offers no advantage whatsoever, and indeed presents as a liability rendering the organism far more likely to be predated than if the stub wing did not exist. The same argument applies to vestigial eyes and other abrupt embryonic physiological developments.
And - most importantly - Adaptation by Natural Selection requires fecundity. Fish, as mentioned earlier, have such fecundity: thousands of female 'gene-carriers' - each of which can go on to produce thousands more of their kind - can be produced from the survival of just one more-successful (i.e. 'fitter') individual. But honey bees are NOT fecund. Huge numbers of female individuals may indeed be produced in the life of a colony, but they are all (except for new queens) genetically sterile and therefore cannot pass on their genes in the large numbers required for Natural Selection. Fecundity is a female-based dynamic - and as we know, honey bees spread their genes via drones.
But it is ONLY in the formation of a new Queen that a new genetic phenotype can be expressed - and new queens occur in very small numbers indeed. It is this absence of fecundity which is, I would suggest, the very reason why the honey bee has not changed significantly over millions of years.
LJ
