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

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Thank you for the information, but since Dar win was not responding to any one of us, what do you think he meant?

[Gregory]

Ecology, obviously. Sorry, Roger, but I don’t have any further response to you, since you haven’t responded to my questions. Maybe try answering others, if you expect answers?

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@T_aquaticus

What it shows is that deleterious mutations are selected against in functional sequence. These are mutations that make the carrier less fit. It verifies selection of the fittest.

OK, I am going back over this discussion because things got rather hectic over the last week with several debates going on. Sorry I missed this.

I am not saying that there is no selection. To the contrary there certainly is. The question is how does it work, by conflict, Is the last person standing the fittest? or by adaption, Will those which are best adapted become the foundation of future generations? Or maybe it doesn’t make any difference I think it does make a difference whether I think that Donald Trump is the greatest president since Andrew Jackson or not.

Your chart then seems to indicate that selection takes place, which is fine, but does it say Why? That is, what are the factors that determine whether an allele is selected in or out? This is the basis of real natural selection, not just a theory… If natural selection is arbitrary, that is if there are no reasons behind it, if it is truly random according to the original meaning of that term, then I would agree that life is meaningless and there is no God. But it is not and that makes all the difference.

[Christopher_Michael]

@Vivi_O2

the Bible often says things like, “the meek will inherit the earth” or “the first shall be last, and the last shall be first”. But that’s not true with evolution. With evolution, the first will be first and the last wil die. There is no room to be “meek” when survival is on the line.

So how would this reality coincide with the words of the Bible?

I’m making a late post here - but I totally agree with what you’re saying @Vivi_O2
What we see in nature - red in tooth and claw as it is, with all its parasites, it’s death, it’s brutal competition - it’s poison, it’s birds pecking the weak to death, it’s prey eating helpless babies, it’s total lack of inherent justice and it’s overarching principle that “only the strong survive so you better get strong” has been around for eons. It’s a veritable Hunger Games of everything that exists. Modern man has been around for a compatible blip of all that time - has it all really been so “we can learn to love and show the way?”. Huge effort, for a pretty lousy outcome too when you look at the world today. We humans do a lot of good, yes - but far out, we do some dark and heinous things too. Things buried in our nature from those 1000s of generations prior. All this - it is so opposite to what the God of the Bible puts forward as the way to be and live in love. You have to ask - how can the same mind be behind both? Both the creation of evolution and then the command to love? I know there are a lot of fancy answers out there - (with all kinds of wild mental gymnastics required) but at the end of the day, the two pictures are very different from each other (IMHO).

Still, I truly hope I’m missing something. There may be a deeper purpose in such things and there all kinds of angles we mere humans could be missing when we look at this. That said, an intellectually honest examination of the facts as they present themselves is a pretty grim exercise.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Relates

@Klax

You refuse to clarify the post in question.

Why is that?

I have, but you fail to accept it.

Where? I have no problem accepting anything rational, or anything irrational in a different rational way come to that.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Noun[edit]

symbiosis ( plural symbioses )

1. A relationship of mutual benefit, especially among different species.
2. (ecology) A close, prolonged association between two or more organisms of different species that normally benefits both members. An interspecies [cooperation](cooperation - Wiktionary).
3. (biology) A close, prolonged association between two or more organisms of different species, regardless of benefit to the members.
4. (possibly obsolete) The state of people living together in a community.

The above seems to reveal the basis of our problem, two different scientific definitions of the word, Symbiosis.

I defend and support the ecological definition.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

I see no difference and that’s not what you said twenty odd posts up where you contradict your own supporting reference.

Here:

@Relates

I am afraid that you are confused. Symbiosis does not refer to any type of interaction between organisms. Symbiosis | Definition of Symbiosis by Merriam-Webster

www.merriam-webster.com /dictionary/ symbiosis

symbiosis

…

Definition of symbiosis

1 : the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms (as in parasitism or commensalism)especially : MUTUALISM

The confusion is entirely yours.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Relates

( ecology) A close, prolonged association between two or more organisms of different species that normally benefits both members. An interspecies [cooperation] (cooperation - Wiktionary, the free dictionary).

@Relates

Symbiosis does not refer to any type of interaction between organisms.

I did not contradict myself, but explained that “with” means with and not “against.”

You said that you knew what symbiosis is, but you did not.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

I have an honours degree in biological sciences from a reputable university and worked in oral microbiology. You?

And you said Symbiosis does not refer to any type of interaction between organisms. and linked to [symbiosis] the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms.

You are confused about your confusion.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Klax

And you said Symbiosis does not refer to any type of interaction between organisms. and linked to [symbiosis] the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms .

You said and I think you still have the same view that symbiosis does include survival of the fittest, which is an interaction between organisms, but Not an “intimate association” or “close union” between organisms. Symbiosis does not include survival of the fittest under the Merriam-Webster definition that I quoted.

Granted, I should have used the word every or all instead of any as in just any, but the meaning here is clear. Symbiosis is a particular type of relationship between organisms, which does not include conflict. If biology thinks it can coopt ecology by changing its terminology, shame on it.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

You are confused.

[T_aquaticus]

@Relates

Your chart then seems to indicate that selection takes place, which is fine, but does it say Why? That is, what are the factors that determine whether an allele is selected in or out?

The factor is relative reproductive success. In other words, how many offspring carry an allele compared to how many don’t.