Darwin's Illusion

[IndigoChild5559]

Darwin certainly believed it was. Species compete for food, water, and room. Individuals compete for mates and everything else. All individuals must claw or eat all others to survive and prosper in a deadly game of "survival of the fittest".

As you suggested life isn't like this. Life is cooperation to maximize life. When something doesn't work it ceases to exist either by changing or extinction.

There are many avenues of evolution. Individual selection, sex selection, group selection. The ability to cooperate is fully acknowledged by scientists as a major factor in group selection. Cooperative groups out compete non-cooperative groups every time.

 

[John53]

Darwin certainly believed it was. Species compete for food, water, and room. Individuals compete for mates and everything else. All individuals must claw or eat all others to survive and prosper in a deadly game of "survival of the fittest".

As you suggested life isn't like this. Life is cooperation to maximize life. When something doesn't work it ceases to exist either by changing or extinction.

I see you still haven't bothered learning what "survival of the fittest" means.

 

[cladking]

I am absolutely certain he didn't as I did read "Origin..." decades ago.

He believed in survival of the fittest. This is the ultimate in competition. He believed species changed to fit their environment because the unfit couldn't compete. Everywhere he believed life was about competition despite the fact that it is obviously about cooperation.

Only healthy germs don't attack the less fit. All germs attack all individuals equally.

 

[cladking]

There are many avenues of evolution. Individual selection, sex selection, group selection. The ability to cooperate is fully acknowledged by scientists as a major factor in group selection. Cooperative groups out compete non-cooperative groups every time.

Thank you but I'm not really talking about homo omnisciencis but all other individuals and that is common to all life including homo omnisciencis.

 

[cladking]

I see you still haven't bothered learning what "survival of the fittest" means.

What is relevant here is what Darwin thought it meant. He thought individuals and species competed and the fittest individuals created new species naturally selected for their environment that was virtually static.

Each of these assumption is wrong and that is why Darwin was so far wrong.

 

[cladking]

What is relevant here is what Darwin thought it meant. He thought individuals and species competed and the fittest individuals created new species naturally selected for their environment that was virtually static.

Each of these assumption is wrong and that is why Darwin was so far wrong.

His assumptions simply were not compatible with life or consciousness. He led us far astray thereby.

 

[metis]

He believed in survival of the fittest. This is the ultimate in competition. He believed species changed to fit their environment because the unfit couldn't compete. Everywhere he believed life was about competition despite the fact that it is obviously about cooperation.

Only healthy germs don't attack the less fit. All germs attack all individuals equally.

You simply don't know what you're talking about as Darwin said no such thing:
As Jeremy Rifkin observes in his book The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis, “Darwin came to believe that survival of the fittest is as much about cooperation, symbiosis, and reciprocity as it is about individual competition and that the most fit are just as likely to enter in cooperative bonds with their fellows.”-- Darwin Said Collaborate

 

[John53]

What is relevant here is what Darwin thought it meant.

Exactly. And you are not using the term how he used it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What is relevant here is what Darwin thought it meant.

That is not the case. What is relevant is what the TOE is today.

 

[cladking]

You simply don't know what you're talking about as Darwin said no such thing:
As Jeremy Rifkin observes in his book The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis, “Darwin came to believe that survival of the fittest is as much about cooperation, symbiosis, and reciprocity as it is about individual competition and that the most fit are just as likely to enter in cooperative bonds with their fellows.”-- Darwin Said Collaborate

Really. Interesting.

This is just one author's opinion but it is surprising. Rifkin is described as a "writer and thinker". This doesn't make him wrong of course but this is the first I ever heard of Darwin coming to see the cooperation of living things. Be that as it may, though, Darwin still wrote what he did and this is as much about Origin of Species as it is about Darwin. Getting one thing right doesn't change all those things he got wrong.

Thanks for the google.

There's an awful lot of history being rewritten by writers and thinkers now days.

 

[cladking]

Exactly. And you are not using the term how he used it.

Everybody parses "survival of the fittest" pretty similarly. The fit survive passing on their genes and the less fit do not. Darwin believed this drove Evolution and still does.

 

[cladking]

That is not the case. What is relevant is what the TOE is today.

Again, I believe biology today has a far better grasp of the nature of change in species than Darwin ever could have. But they still cling to "survival of the fittest" under a fancy new name that is both more politically correct and more accurate, but it is only a little less wrong. To the degree it is accurate it is describing the adaptations species make in response to a large change in their niche. But it still has very little to do with massive changes in significant species and does not occur over very long time periods normally.

 

[John53]

Everybody parses "survival of the fittest" pretty similarly.

Most do, you don't and I've seen others that are confused so not everybody.

 

[metis]

There's an awful lot of history being rewritten by writers and thinkers now days.

Including some here at RF.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Again, I believe biology today has a far better grasp of the nature of change in species than Darwin ever could have. But they still cling to "survival of the fittest" under a fancy new name that is both more politically correct and more accurate, but it is only a little less wrong. To the degree it is accurate it is describing the adaptations species make in response to a large change in their niche. But it still has very little to do with massive changes in significant species and does not occur over very long time periods normally.

"However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection. The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability."

Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Hammer]

Really. Interesting.

This is just one author's opinion but it is surprising.

Not really the authors opinion, this has been the consensus in every bio class I've taken from high school on.

"In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”- Charles Darwin.

 

[cladking]

Not really the authors opinion, this has been the consensus in every bio class I've taken from high school on.

"In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”- Charles Darwin.

I'm not disputing your claim since I don't know but "collaborate and improvise" are not the same as cooperation. "Collaboration" is nearly a synonym but I'm sure Darwin ,meant this be applied to members of a single species and even the most casual observer sees that members of many species cooperate with one another.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm not disputing your claim since I don't know but "collaborate and improvise" are not the same as cooperation. "Collaboration" is nearly a synonym but I'm sure Darwin ,meant this be applied to members of a single species and even the most casual observer sees that members of many species cooperate with one another.

Now who is putting words into Darwin's mouth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He believed in survival of the fittest. This is the ultimate in competition. He believed species changed to fit their environment because the unfit couldn't compete. Everywhere he believed life was about competition despite the fact that it is obviously about cooperation.

Only healthy germs don't attack the less fit. All germs attack all individuals equally.

Only if one uses a strawman argument. What do you think that he meant by "fittest"?

 

[cladking]

What do you think that he meant by "fittest"?

Obviously Darwin meant quickest, smartest, most alert, or hardest to kill dependent on what nature was selecting for at that moment.

Survival of the fittest is about competition and death and has little or no meaning to life or the causes of change in species.