• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Darwin's Illusion

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Is it time once again for the recap/correction post for this thread?

I think it is. I need to clarify that living things are not all equally fit. All change in living things is not sudden. Darwin did not assume that populations were stable. Stable environments do not tend to promote change. The assumptions Darwin used were sound. Fitness is a measure of reproductive success.

You know, that sort of thing.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I've been getting caught up in the police, Karen, doorbell camera videos. People are messed up and you don't even need to use science to see that.

For some reason I'm watching a video on the Australian accent but I do enjoy the Karen videos when they're getting arrested.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
For some reason I'm watching a video on the Australian accent but I do enjoy the Karen videos when they're getting arrested.
I watch a video that @Revoltingest posted and after I finished, I let the next video come up and it was crazy drivers. Then, when that was finished, it was Karens gone wild. Then videos of police stopping people for no apparent reason. It just kept escalating and before I knew it, I had been watching this stuff for hours.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I watch a video that @Revoltingest posted and after I finished, I let the next video come up and it was crazy drivers. Then, when that was finished, it was Karens gone wild. Then videos of police stopping people for no apparent reason. It just kept escalating and before I knew it, I had been watching this stuff for hours.

Even rabbits get caught down rabbit holes. That will probably be the death of evolution.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
I have to confess that I have never trimmed a hedge but I did watch the neighbour trim his hedge yesterday. Coincidence? I think not. It's a sign!
I don't recall ever doing it either. When I was a kid, we had a neighbor that had modified a push mower so it could be held up by two people and be used to give the hedges a flattop. In restrospect, it was probably one of the most assanine and dangerous things I ever saw as a kid.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Even rabbits get caught down rabbit holes. That will probably be the death of evolution.
I thought that the daily rootin', tootin' refutin' threads had regularly taken care of evolution already. At least that is the message that keeps getting repeated.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Obviously Darwin meant quickest, smartest, most alert, or hardest to kill dependent on what nature was selecting for at that moment.
Nature is always and only selecting for fecundity. Survival is irrelevant if one doesn't reproduce. The fittest genes are the ones that proliferate in the greatest proportion in a population's gene pool thanks to them generating the most fecund organisms (phenotype), meaning generate the most fertile offspring.
Survival of the fittest is about competition and death
No, it's about competition and birth. Fitness doesn't necessarily require fighting or killing or escaping death. Sometimes it means being more appealing to potential mates. In a setting in which resources are limited and many are competing for them, some will win and some will lose, and we call the winners the fittest however they won.

There are non-biological analogies. During the pandemic, many restaurants failed and many survived to continue being profitable in the future. These businesses weren't at war with one another and they didn't actively harm one another. In my community, they often supported one another. The resources they were competing for were customer dollars (market share), and the analogy to fecundity was the number of meals sold.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I watch a video that @Revoltingest posted and after I finished, I let the next video come up and it was crazy drivers. Then, when that was finished, it was Karens gone wild. Then videos of police stopping people for no apparent reason. It just kept escalating and before I knew it, I had been watching this stuff for hours.
The internet is wonderful.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Nature is always and only selecting for fecundity. Survival is irrelevant if one doesn't reproduce.

I'm a little surprised you believe this and don't believe this reflects what Darwin believed. Fertility is irrelevant if one doesn't survive or find a mate.

In a sense you are right but the mere ability to have a lot of offspring does not reproduce ones genes. Nature wouldn't spend considerable resources in reproduction. Individuals might but not nature. Nature gives us the means and the desire which is more than sufficient.

No, it's about competition and birth. Fitness doesn't necessarily require fighting or killing or escaping death. Sometimes it means being more appealing to potential mates.

Of course competition is About death. What tends to make individuals sexually attractive is just robust good health. Obviously many factors apply as well as mere availability. Good nests, the best territory, brightest colors, most free time, almost anything goes into selection. Never are dead mates considered.

...and we call the winners the fittest however they won.

Yes, indeed. This is only symptomatic of the fact that it's a circular argument.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I watch a video that @Revoltingest posted and after I finished, I let the next video come up and it was crazy drivers. Then, when that was finished, it was Karens gone wild. Then videos of police stopping people for no apparent reason. It just kept escalating and before I knew it, I had been watching this stuff for hours.
I understand. I've enjoyed watching multiple bad behavior compilations - "Karens" on airplanes, in airports, in fast food and convenience stores. They're like car wrecks one can't turn away from.

Also, the videos with the guy who glitters porch pirates (search parameters: "glitters porch pirates"):
1697292088448.png
And the IT whizzes who exact revenge on scammers:
And, Patty Mayo's bail bondsmen videos

the mere ability to have a lot of offspring does not reproduce ones genes.
Sure it does, and nothing else does that.
Of course competition is About death. What tends to make individuals sexually attractive is just robust good health. Obviously many factors apply as well as mere availability. Good nests, the best territory, brightest colors, most free time, almost anything goes into selection. Never are dead mates considered.
So you describe the competition to generate life in terms of death even though nothing need be killed for a gene to ascend to prominence in a gene pool. Potential mates don't need to be dead to be rejected. Pick a living but sterile one and the outcome is the same.
it's a circular argument.
I wrote, "We call the winners the fittest however they won." It's not an argument or a claim. It's a definition. The claim in the context of biology is that natural selection applied to genetic variation in living populations over generations results in biological evolution. That's what winning means in this context and how it manifests.
 
Top