How does “survival of the fittest” work with the Bible?

For me, “survival of the fittest” never accurately explained the evolutionary process. I’ve always felt it was more about the ability to change which has less to do with fitness and more to to with the ability to adapt.

Certainly that is a big part of how science currently understands it, what with neutral drift and all. It is important at for species to have that ability to adapt as conditions change. Species without genetic diversity are often endangered and living on the brink of extinction.

1 Like

I agree with you. In fact I would go as far as to say it is all about the ability to adapt and this ability is based on symbiosis as we understand it through ecology. Evolution is about change, but we know that biota tend to change slowly through genetics.

The environment usually changes slowly, but can change more quickly as the result of climate change, population shifts, vulcanism, diseases, etc. It is more logical to say that species change to adapt to the environment than to say that the environment has changes to adapt to genetic change.

This seems to be too rational for people like Dawkins who want to insist that evolution is random, or that there is a possibility that dinosaurs will evolve from cats. Dawkins put all the power of evolution in the hands of genes and none in ecology. Of course genes are important, but ecology determines which ones will survive and thrive.

The universe has its share of rabbits and wolves, because the universe is finite and the ecological niches in the universe are finite, thus we have diversity which allows for a huge range of flora and fauna, valleys and hills, stars, planets, and asteroids.

Evolution is about change. Having grandchildren does not produce change. Having flora and fauna that does adapt constantly changing world does produce change.

Dear Phil @jpm,

From where do you get your informati0on about “how science currently understands” evolution? I have been looking for and asking for proof of this point of view without finding it.

Do you or BioLogos have a special source of information that you could share those of us who are unenlightened? I am old fashioned enough not to believe something that is not backed up by hard verifiable facts.

Having genetic diversity is an important part of being able to adapt. It does not negate our view. but strengthens it.

This means that some organisms will die from starvation and/or not have descendants. Wolves kill other wolves. Some wolves die because they can’t get enough food. There will be rabbits that get enough food and those that starve, while others are killed by predators. There seems to be unavoidable competition within and between species.

The ol’ bait and switch. We are discussing natural selection which is selection of pre-existing variation.

1 Like

The Calvin & Hobbes cartoon I enjoyed. As a sociologist, it would nevertheless be difficult to put together a short sentence as above with which I disagree more. There’s no humour in my voice when stating that.

The sentence sounds a bit like August Comte, who coined the terms “altruism” and “sociology”. He used the term “evolution” as far back as 1824, en route to coming up with his very own “religion of humanity”, with himself as the (most evolved positivist) self-proclaimed “high priest”.

A hug of thanks for breaking curious new ground of interpretation at BioLogos! :hugs:

1 Like

Dawkins in general is quite appalling when it comes to any philosophical, historical, or religious claim, though he is up on pecking order in chickens. Although there are certainly aspects of evolution that can be described as either random or directional in a mathematical sense, that tells us nothing philosophically or theologically about God’s sovereignty, determinism, or free will. The Bible affirms that God is in control of events that we would consider random (e.g., casting lots, shooting an arrow in the general direction of the other army, long-term weather). The scientific patterns of evolution don’t tell us anything one way or the other about that. Likewise, obviously there are plenty of things around us that are more constrained and plenty that seem less constrained, but that doesn’t affect the opinions of people who argue about determinism and free will. Too often, the supposedly evolutionary philosophy is a superficial “determinism=I can blame someone else” or “free will=I can do whatever I feel like”.

Survival of the fit enough is an observed biological pattern. It’s very useful in understanding how biological systems behave. But just as gravity does not tell us “you should knock everything down and drop stuff on people”, evolution does not tell us what we ought to do. It’s useful for secondary insights. E.g., it suggests that people are likely to be selfish, which is no surprise if you happen to know any people such as yourself. But it does not tell us whether that is good or bad.

Also, Biblical ethics are not just the Law, they are a good idea. God didn’t draw up arbitrary hoops for us to jump through; it’s pretty obvious that violating “do not murder, do not steal” etc. are good ideas (except when we’re trying to fool ourselves into thinking that we’ve got a good excuse to be selfish instead.) So it would not be surprising if groups of humans with such ethical standards tend to do better over the long run than those who don’t promote such standards. There is likely to be some evolutionary advantage to morality. However, “this could give me an evolutionary benefit” is definitely not proof that something is ethical. After all, all sorts of things could have some sort of evolutionary advantage; that does not narrow down the choices very much. The Bible gives us other goals besides shortsighted evolutionary self-interest, though often they may align with long-term evolutionary success.

1 Like

Some people assume that being a believer in God corrupts one’s understanding of science. It does if one tries to force one’s scientific views to fit one’s faith understanding. It does not if one takes one’s understanding of science and place it against one’s understanding of how God works and see if they can be reconciled or not.

If they can, fine. If not which often seems the case, then one must closely examine them to see which one is the most problematic and how they can be better understood to come together. It is a process of growing both, not dismissing one.

What is true of believers, is also true of non-believers. It is my observation that the appalling religious claims of Dawkins have corrupted his scientific views. If you want to defend his scientific views or other scientific views concerning evolution, fine, but you haven’t. All you have done is give glittering generalities, which are meaningless.

  1. You do not seem to understand the nature of the argument, in which case it seems that Dawkins is far ahead of you in this area. We are not arguing about an out of sate dualist world, God vs Nature. We are talking about One and the Many world where God and Humans and Nature are all working together to create the wonderful world we call home.
  1. If “survival of the fit” is an observed biological pattern, then why on earth do we not have ONE scientifically verified study verifying this, as far as I can tell. If you can find one please do.
  1. You say that survival of the fit or fittest indicates that humans are often selfish, which is not news, so I so not think it is helpful. Others says that it does not mean that, because they say that many biota chose a strategy based on cooperation, nor conflict.
    So which is it?

Can water flow up hill if decides this is the best way to go?

  1. If God created human beings by nature to be selfish, as Dawkins claims, then there is no way we can be changed to be unselfish. There is no way we can love others because they are evil, not wrong, but evil. I do not think that God can love anyone or anything that God has created to be evil. Of course we know that God has created nothing and no one to be evil. As Jesus said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” God created humans in God’s own Image, not the image of Satan.

Increased sequence conservation in functional DNA is verification of survival of the fittest. You can verify it by going to the UCSC genome browser and comparing the gene transcript and sequence conservation tracks.

Notice how all of the Cons tracks spike up where there is an exon in the RHO track (the larger blue boxes are exons). That’s verification of survival of the fittest.

1 Like

Thank you for your comment, and the kindness, and the critique. Perhaps you can clarify. There was no disagreeable or religious intent on my part.

Blessings, Randy

Well, here is one source from a quick google. Certainly not all inclusive, but as stated a part of current understanding.

Phil,

Thank you very much for the reference. From all indications it is a good website. As you may know I have been trying to generate discussion about Natural Selection for a long time now but I have hit barriers as the result of unsubstantiated claims.

One is the false claim that Natural Selection is random, but this website says;

Misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation :

(Misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation - Understanding Evolution) :

But it’s not random either!

So it is a misconception to view natural selection as a process that perfects organisms. At the opposite extreme, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don’t. Natural selection is not random!

Another issue to be that some people refused to say that Natural Selection is adaptive.
*

*> An adaptation is a feature produced by natural selection for its current function.*for the Berkeley website

Finally @T_aquaticus spoke of Neutral Drift in such a way that it seemed to replace Natural Selection as the primary driver for change in Evolution, which according to this website is not true.

> The data supporting and refuting the neutral theory are complicated. Figuring out how widely the theory applies is still the topic of much research.
*> *
> The neutral theory is easily misinterpreted. It does NOT suggest:
*> *
> * That organisms are not adapted to their environments
> * That all morphological variation is neutral
> * That ALL genetic variation is neutral
> * That natural selection is unimportant in shaping genomes
*> *
> Most importantly, the neutral theory is NOT an alternative to the theory of evolution; it is simply an elaboration of a small part of evolutionary theory.

Neutral drift is called neutral because it passes the test of Natural Selection. It is a change in the structure of the gene which is why it is of interest to the geneticist, but make no significant alteration of the adaption of the allele, so it makes no significant change in how the biota survives.

In my opinion Mutation or Variation as Darwin called it and Natural Selection are the two engines of Evolution. Adaption is what Natural Selection creates. Migration is moving from one ecological niche to another looking for a better match. Neutral Drift is making adjustments after the identity of the species has been fixed.

Because Natural Selection is not random, but guided by the environment, Evolution is not random. It is determined by the One Who created life, the genes that shape it, and the environment which is its home.

I would not be surprised if some of my statements weren’t clear; more context is often needed.

“Some people assume that being a believer in God corrupts one’s understanding of science. It does if one tries to force one’s scientific views to fit one’s faith understanding. It does not if one takes one’s understanding of science and place it against one’s understanding of how God works and see if they can be reconciled or not…
What is true of believers, is also true of non-believers.”

Yes. Dawkins indeed tries to force his scientific views to fit his faith’s understanding. Though to be precise, most of his errors come when he is claiming that his religion, history, philosophy, etc. are science rather than when he is actually dealing with science. He actually is a competent science, though an incompetent logician and philosopher, so he has a decent chance of getting the actual science right.

“All you have done is give glittering generalities, which are meaningless.”

Actually, all I did was give a very specific example, chicken pecking order, which isn’t too meaningful except that it’s something that Dawkins studied. On the other hand, you probably don’t want me to try to upload a dissertation on bivalve evolution; there is a limit to how in-depth things can easily go here. I’m not certain just what you are looking for in asking for experimental support of the survival of the fittest. Again, it’s a popular but inaccurate catch phrase. What biological evolution actually shows is survival of the fit enough. Even deciding what would be the “fittest” is problematic. For example, the atheistic complaint “why, if the panda is designed, does it not have a better thumb?” ignores the fact that if pandas had the Amazing Super Thumb™, they might wipe out the bamboo - there are multiple factors that must be balanced in order to survive and reproduce. But there are plenty of experiments showing that fitter organisms in a specific setting are successful, and changes can occur over time in response to particular environmental factors. For example, lab experiments on flour beetles (subtle variations in temperature, humidity, and similar factors lead to one of two species being more successful in direct competition) or bacteria or trials with releasing guppies and lizards (short-legged is better for climbing, long-legged is better for running; releasing short-legged lizards onto a treeless island leads to longer-legged lizards) into new areas and seeing how they change. Japanese fishermen in one bay threw back crabs whose bumps looked somewhat like a face; now the grabs generally have a face-like pattern. Also, many tests have been run to show the relative advantages and disadvantages for survival of having different features. The peppered moth example is a classic despite the generally silly complaints that have been made. We can also compare the patterns seen in organisms under natural conditions to that expected from selection. Fish getting into a lake newly accessible after glaciation tend to show the same specializations for different habitat options across different lakes. Evolutionary models work well in analyzing DNA sequences, patterns of physical features, etc. There is a lot of experimental support. To some extent, it’s almost tautologous - organisms with features that help them to survive do better than those who don’t.

“‘Although there are certainly aspects of evolution that can be described as either random or directional in a mathematical sense, that tells us nothing philosophically or theologically about God’s sovereignty, determinism, or free will.’”
“You do not seem to understand the nature of the argument…We are talking about One and the Many world where God and Humans and Nature are all working together to create the wonderful world we call home.”
My point was that the physical patterns do not tell us about the theological question; I was not talking about dualistic versus more cooperative ideas at all. If you want to understand what I write here, it will do you no good to analyze the physics of the electrons that are transmitting it or the wiring of your computer. You need to read what I wrote. Likewise, the fact that certain aspects of evolution can be mathematically described as probabilistic or chaotic or deterministic does not tell us anything one way or the other about God’s role, or even that of humans. If, for theological reasons, we believe that God is involved in everything that happens, then we will perceive His hand in events that are mathematically “random” and His sovereign choices in events that seem “determined”. In principle, a deity might or might not be involved in such events. All the science says is “if some sort of deity/-ties were involved in the process of creating different kinds of organisms, he/she/it/they followed a pattern reasonably well described by the theory of evolution.” Not a very useful statement, except as a rebuttal to those claiming to deduce more than that from the science alone.

“‘it suggests that people are likely to be selfish, which is no surprise if you happen to know any people such as yourself. But it does not tell us whether that is good or bad.’”
“You say that survival of the fit or fittest indicates that humans are often selfish, which is not news, so I do not think it is helpful. Others says that it does not mean that, because they say that many biota chose a strategy based on cooperation, nor conflict. So which is it?”

Often is not always. Many organisms, including humans, use strategies that involve cooperation. Many organisms, including humans, use strategies that are selfish. Many organisms, including humans, cooperate in ways that also advance their self-interest. Yes, it is no news that humans are selfish. Evolution provides a partial explanation of why. And self-interest is not inherently wrong - we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, not to love them and not ourselves. The Bible calls us to prioritize the common good relative to shortsighted self-interest, but the common good is ultimately in self-interest as well. Rehoboam’s harsh answer impoverished himself and his buddies when they thought they were enhancing their own power, for example.

“If God created human beings by nature to be selfish, as Dawkins claims, then there is no way we can be changed to be unselfish. There is no way we can love others because they are evil, not wrong, but evil…God created humans in God’s own Image, not the image of Satan.”

God created human beings with a nature that is capable of being selfish. God also created human beings with hands that can be used to murder or steal. But there are also good uses for hands. Likewise, there are good uses of the instinct towards self-preservation - we should not frivolously or stupidly put ourselves at risk but instead should seek to maintain good health, earn an honest living, etc. In both cases, it’s a matter of what use we make of what God has given us. Being fallen, we are inclined towards bad uses. But that does not mean that evolution justifies selfishness. That’s like trying to blame Isaac Newton if I shoot someone. Yet our sinful natures can be changed by God to ones that are being molded back into His image. The image of God is not gone from fallen humanity, but it is marred - the mirror has become a stained glass.

“Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Instead, these groups have evolved by expanding into empty [ecological niches]”(Ecological niche - Wikipedia)

Taken from the article in the Wikipedia, Survival of the Fittest

This is my position.

Yeah, the ‘Social’ is superfluous.

The Wikipedia article seems somewhat confused. It gives no evidence that the fittest do not survive. Although it is true that amphibians, reptiles, and mammals did a lot of expanding into empty niches, why is an empty niche appealing? Because it avoids competition. So competition is still an important factor in such situations. The theory that the fittest species survive is not undermined by a lack of direct competition. The best cooperator, or the best at finding empty niches, can also be considered “fittest” in some fashion.

However, it is true that there are significant questions about the relative roles of competition, cooperation, and other factors in evolution. Expanding into empty niches shows that survival of the fit enough does not have to consist of fighting it out. It is even true that the fittest do not always survive. For example, no degree of fitness will help if an organism happens to be in the impact area for an asteroid, though certain types of fitness could enhance survival at a greater distance. How much of a difference do such factors make? For example, Perry Marshall claims that other factors besides natural selection lead to Evolution 2.0. I think it’s more like Evolution 1.134a - notable upgrades, but not really a new version.

1 Like

I suspect that Gregory and Randy are seeing different meanings in the phrase “social evolution”. Explaining that may help to sort this out.

1 Like

? :grin:

image

I have to agree that wiki is wrong. As you say:

David, thank you for your reply, but I think that you made a serious error. You say that I favor a scientific view not because of its scientific merit, but because it corresponds to my world view. In doing so you and your friends can dismiss my point of view without seriously considering my view which you do not understand given the short time that we have interacted.

To clarify my view is based on the ecological process called symbiosis whereby biota interact with their environment in a positive so that they can adapt to each other and their niches. It is not a struggle to dominate, which is the original meaning of survival of the fittest, which came into being in Victorian England when the British Empire ruled the world.

Of course the culture of the USA is firmly rooted in Victorian England and in the ideology of competition. It is helpful to distinguish here between friendly competition which is really intended to improve everyone and unfriendly competition which makes some “winners” and others “losers.” Darwinian competition is definitely the first kind, while friendly competition is definitely compatible with symbiosis.

Nonavian dinosaurs did not go extinct because of competition from other species. They went extinct because climate change slowly destroyed their habitats. Climate change created new ecological niches which mammals and others, including birds, populated because they were able to successfully adapt and create a large number of new species in this new more diverse world.

European rabbits were imported into Australia where their population exploded because they had no predators to check population growth and they overwhelmed the native marsupials. It took two pandemics to prevent this invasive species from destroying the environment there, not competition.

The story you told about the crabs who became dominant in number because fishermen threw back those which has a “face” on their shell is a clear example of how natural selection and adaption works because some crabs are selected to survive because of some accident of nature, which has nothing to do with competition between crabs.

The fact that saves survival of the fittest is that it is a circular argument, which per se is not scientific. Also it’s meaning is expanded until it is meaningless, which is beyond the bounds of logic.

Precisely defining terms is a key factor in understanding. Symbiosis is a very important biological factor affecting evolution. Competition is one form of symbiosis - the term refers to any type of interactions between organisms. These could be mutualistic (both benefitting), commensal (one benefits), antagonistic, etc. The phrase “survival of the fittest” certainly originated in the idea of a struggle to dominate, which is part of why I keep using “fit enough” instead. But mutualism can produce greater fitness as well. The concept of biological fitness is quite broad - anything that helps an organism in a particular situation. Direct head to head competition is a popular theme for nature specials chasing ratings and the like, but reality is complicated, and any simple formula is almost certainly wrong. For example, there is some direct competition going on at the birdfeeder out back. If a squirrel eats a seed, a chickadee cannot eat that same seed. But different animals have different skills making them better or worse at handling specific types of seeds, finding the seeds that get in a crack, etc. Sometimes there is a direct confrontation, but typically either one animal will stay away when another is there, or else different individuals are able to each feed while not objecting to the neighbor. All of these represent competitions of sorts, but not generally much like the ones on ESPN. Each of the animals involved is maintaining a level of fitness. Those that are better at getting enough food do have an advantage.

Again, the relative role of more mutualistic versus more competitive interactions is one of the debated issues in evolutionary biology. Both are certainly important. But a modern understanding of survival of the fit enough is not restricted to a direct competition. The dinosaurs died out due to the abrupt climate changed from the asteroid impact and associated environmental devastation, not from direct competition (yes, some of their descendants the birds survived; I’m doubtful that trying to be more cladistic in our use of established names actually enhances communication though.) But they had adapted particular lifestyles in the face of competition from assorted other reptiles in the Triassic; they were fit in the regular environment but had low fitness during the extreme stresses of the impact and its aftermath. Of course, the dinosaurs could not have done anything about the asteroid hitting at a very bad angle in a very bad place - fitness isn’t everything. But more fit individuals certainly do tend to be more evolutionarily successful. Survival of the fittest is not entirely circular, because fitness can be measured in terms of how well an organism does in a particular situation, which can then be compared to the reproductive success.

Where there is close competition, it can be a very strong selective factor. But close competition does not always exist. The rabbits introduced to Australia compete with the native grazers, and probably would have some advantages in areas that were dominated by European grasses introduced by humans.

Returning to the original theme of the thread, survival of the fit enough is a general biological pattern. Not everything survives, only those organisms that do well enough in the face of the various environmental challenges that they encounter. But “general biological pattern” is not “moral imperative”. The Bible tells us that there are more important things than worrying about our evolutionary success.

3 Likes