Survival of the fittest is a catchy slogan and prominent in many popular presentations of evolution (both for and against). But it is wrong as a picture of biological evolution. Probably none of us in this thread are Olympic class athletes, yet we have survived so far. The fit enough survive, not just the fittest. In fact, what is fittest? Organisms must deal with multiple pressures and constraints. “Fittest” for one function often interferes with another. Antitheists are unreasonable in claiming that the panda’s thumb is evidence againt design. It’s good enough to eat bamboo with, and that’s what matters, for example.
Survival of the fittest also conjures up images of cutthroat competition. But cooperation and avoidance are also possible strategies to success.
Narratives about survival of the fittest and ruthless competition may help draw viewers for nature shows, but they are not very accurate.
Of course, evolution cannot tell you not to try to get ahead by putting the other person down. Study of history would suggest that cooperation is a smarter option for humans, though.
The fact that one scientific model is well supported certainly does not prove that others are good. But if your argument against evolution applies also to gravity, and you haven’t floated off the earth, then maybe your argument isn’t good.
That comparison is made by scientists to refute, it is not made by critics of ToE.(because, as you say, it is not valid).
Richard
Edit
Whether cooperation can help or not, is not the point. The point is that the whole principle of natural Selection is that the stronger (or better organised (adapted) trample on the weak and eliminate them. That does not reflect the Christiian view of a loving God who cares for all and especially the weak and vulnerable.
The whole principle of natural selection is not trampling on and eliminating the weak. The principle of natural selection is whatever works. “Whatever works” does not rule out trampling and eliminating the weak, but neither does it require it. Again, popular accounts of evolution, whether in favor or opposed, are frequently quite inaccurate on this topic in particular. Obviously, there are situations in nature where being weak is a disadvantage. But sometimes the apparently weak do rather well, and sometimes conditions are easy for everyone. Conversely, when times are very tough, organisms may be too focused on just surviving to be doing much competition.
“Whatever works” is, of course, a terrible ethical standard for humans. But so is “drop things so gravity can work”. The fault is not with natural selection or gravity; the problem is the silly error of claiming that science tells us what we ought to do. (Ironically, David Hume pointed out that problem, yet many later atheists fall in to that mistake.)
Natural selection has been a very successful biological model for over 160 years, though of course those years have involved a lot of revision of various components of the model. Like all scientific models, it should continue to receive scrutiny and correction. But it has already made it through over a century and a half. Any valid critique will need to accurately represent what natural selection really is, not a caricature. It needs to seriously engage with current research. Any new idea must provide a better explanation of the data in order to replace a currently accepted scientific model.
Natural selection is happening right now in all species, including humans. It is an inescapable consequence of biological reproduction coupled with mutations. For example, natural selection has increased the prevalence of specific hemoglobin mutations in regions with malaria. This is due to these mutations conferring resistance to malaria, but at the same time some of those mutations can cause sickle cell anemia in homozygotes. Children born without these mutations have a higher chance of dying in childhood and never having children of their own.
As usual you iss the point and go off on one of your “teaching” sessions. Especially as you are not actually talking Natural Selection, or Survival of the Fittest, you are taliking of individual survival, and freedom to live or die.
I do not need to know that a weakened animal is more likely to get killed or even that some people are more suseptable to one or another disaese. That is not the point.
And ihave given uo making the same point over and over, just to be misunderstood, or answered a ta tangent.
Nope, I’m talking about natural selection in the human population. Also, no children choose to have malaria, or choose to have specific hemoglobin alleles.
That is the point. That is what drives natural selection.
Your point will be wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.
Neither am I. I am talking about the human population that is undergoing natural selection.
Individual survival and reproduction is natural selection.
Whether a weaker animal is more likely to get killed is natural selection. Whether sime people are more susceptible to disease, and hence less like to reach adulthoid and reproduce, is natural selection
If you aren’t talking about individuals,[1] at least statistically, then you aren’t talking about natural selection.
there is selection at the group and species level too, but its much less common and shouldn’t be covered until natural selection of individuals is understood. ↩︎
That is not the recognised use of Natural Selection,
And that is not what i meant either!
No to is not. Natural Selection is about species or opulations, not individuals.
You wouldn’t know. You still haven]t understood it.
No, you are not. You are talking about individuals within a population. There is not a"selection" of people with specific imunities. So unless you find a human who is imune to all disease you are talking rubbish.
Besdes, that ignores human mediicine and imunisation vaccines. Nautural Selection is negated by such things, even if it applied.
As usual, you fail to see the global picture, being obsessed with specific examples.
Yes, it is. Selection can be quantified, and the field of science that quantifies selection is called Population Genetics. Natural selection is recognized by all biologists as referring to changes within a population.
That’s exactly how it reads. I showed you a map detailing the distribution of an allele in a population and you claimed I was, “taliking of individual survival, and freedom to live or die.”
I am talking about populations.
I have understood it. You are just wrong.
I am talking about the geographic distribution of an allele across the globe within a population.
Then how do you explain the higher prevalence of a mutation that confers malarial resistance in regions with endemic malaria?
How long have those been available? How long have human beings lived in Africa?
The point was you objecting to reality in the basis of arguable theological ideas. Any response to that will start with the reality that “natural selection is happening right now”.
It’s about both – populations and species are comprised of individuals. As Roy noted, you have to address individual selection in order to get to species/population selection. After all, mutations don’t occur in populations, they occur in individuals.
I never claimed an individual chooses to gt ill or be prey.
No you are talking about individuals within a population. Unless the trait becomes part of the population it is not pat of Evolution, s not part of Natural Selection.
Not from your responses, and that is all I have to go on.
Then don’t go on holiday, or if you do, get the right shots.
Disease imunisation is not part of human Evolution, it is just a natural occurance built in to all humans. Once you hae had something you develop imunity. Wow.
Just forget it and consider me wrong, it saves us all effort.
Natural Section (capitals for specific usage) was coined within Evolutionary theory for one species surviving over another.
Although the proncple can be applied within species it would only be relevant if it ended up as a trait of the whole species for it to be the Evolutionary use.
natural selection (without capitals) woud be how Aquaticus has been using it, on an individual basis, rather than as a population change.
That is how I am using it. (I am sure you wil overule that view)
Odd then that it was never used that way in any university biology class I ever took! It was used to indicate the change in species over time, regardless of any other species.
But he hasn’t been using it of individuals except as members of populations. Natural selection operates on individuals, and secondarily on populations.
“Especially as you are not actually talking Natural Selection, or Survival of the Fittest, you are taliking of individual survival, and freedom to live or die.”–RichardG
The hemoglobin alleles are part of the population.
Acquired immunity in the form of B and T cell clonal lineages isn’t heritable. Also, hemoglobin isn’t part of the immune system. It is the hemoglobin alleles that are conferring resistance.
Getting malaria does not mutate your hemoglobin gene in your gametes. Your explanation doesn’t match with known biology.
Your “examples” do not reflect the whole story, and show your usual focus on the specific rather than the whole.
you would be better to
aand I object to you echoing back my wn words as if they contradict , when they only ocontradict your views, not mine.
(Quote mining is considered wrong here)
Richard
edit
Natural Selection, in Evoltion, is about Species. and speciation,. It is you who is trying to justify his misue of terminology.
