Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Little Dragon]

Everybody on the planet knows what survival of the fittest means.

Survival of the fittest is not a good descriptive term for the process it describes.

Organisms, in any ecological niche, survive, or rather live long enough to reproduce, do so by adapting to that ecological niche. They do this by having physical advantages over other competitors for their niches.

For example, animals that inhabit islands and island chains, over many generations, often become much smaller than the founding population. This phenomenon is widespread and known as Island Dwarfism, it has even affected members of the Homo genus. Homo Floresiensis, whom were mostly under 1.2 m tall. They inhabited the island of Flores in Indonesia about 50000 years ago.
They become smaller and weaker, because that is a successful adaptation on an island, where there are few if any large natural predators. No need to waste energy building unnecessary body mass, to fight off predators when competing with them or when becoming prey themselves.
Conversely, regions with lots of predators, cause the opposite evolutionary response, and an increase in the size of prey animals. African mega fauna, like Elephants and Rhinos, are a good example.

 

[McBell]

Survival of the fittest is not a good descriptive term for the process it describes.

Organisms, in any ecological niche, survive, or rather live long enough to reproduce, do so by adapting to that ecological niche. They do this by having physical advantages over other competitors for their niches.

For example, animals that inhabit islands and island chains, over many generations, often become much smaller than the founding population. This phenomenon is widespread and known as Island Dwarfism, it has even affected members of the Homo genus. Homo Floresiensis, whom were mostly under 1.2 m tall. They inhabited the island of Flores in Indonesia about 50000 years ago.
They become smaller and weaker, because that is a successful adaptation on an island, where there are few if any large natural predators. No need to waste energy building unnecessary body mass, to fight off predators when competing with them or when becoming prey themselves.
Conversely, regions with lots of predators, cause the opposite evolutionary response, and a growth in the size of prey animals. African mega fauna, like Elephants and Rhinos, are a good example.

Except that Survival of the Fittest is not limited to physical....

 

[Little Dragon]

Except that Survival of the Fittest is not limited to physical....

The brain is, physical.

 

[Little Dragon]

Except that Survival of the Fittest is not limited to physical....

They primarily do this with physical advantages. Not intellectual ones.

 

[McBell]

They primarily do this with physical advantages. Not intellectual ones.

I fully agree that most advantages are physical.

In fact, I read an article a while back that explored why most are physical rather than intellectual.
It has to do with how long it takes for the intellectual versions to effect a large enough number of individuals to be effective on a large scale.

 

[Little Dragon]

I fully agree that most advantages are physical.

Intelligence and problem solving, are of course, another way organisms can out compete others. It's interesting though because Slime moulds for example exhibit problem solving abilities, and they lack any kind of centralized nervous system, or even neurons.

 

[McBell]

Intelligence and problem solving, are of course, another way organisms can out compete others. It's interesting though because Slime moulds for example exhibit problem solving abilities, and they lack any kind of centralized nervous system, or even neurons.

It is my opinion that this merely shows that although mankinds knowledge of nature is growing, we still have a long ways to go.

 

[Little Dragon]

It is my opinion that this merely shows that although mankinds knowledge of nature is growing, we still have a long ways to go.

Indeed. I suspect they follow very simple rules, relating to stimuli and cellular death. To efficiently navigate their way through their environments, to find food. En mass, acting in a collective, almost multicellular manner. Slime moulds are single celled organisms, usually.

 

[gnostic]

I think they are taking a theory and going with that as if it's the truth. I certainly don't think scientists are deliberately lying in all cases but rather are using the theory of "natural selection" to substantiate the idea.

it is not just idea or speculation only, and haven’t been for 150 years, as it have been substantiated with verifiable evidence, that the theory of Evolution is factual information about biodiversity through genetic variations to speciation.

There are 5 alternative mechanisms to Evolution, and each mechanism have been tested, via observations of evidence, not just with fossils, but more importantly DNA testing, to show common ancestry between species and species, between subspecies and subspecies.

And more important, it has been recognised as science, by other disciplines and fields of Natural Sciences.

The only lying I see are from creationists, particularly YEC creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, who are also creationists pretending not to be creationists, particularly misinformation & propaganda published by organisations like AnswersInGenesis, Creation Ministries International, and the Discovery Institute. It is these organisations and groups of people who spread pseudoscience fantasies.

Tell me, YoursTrue.

is it only Natural Selection you have problem with?

Or do you also have problems with Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow or Genetic Hitchhiking?

 

[cladking]

"believers in science".


Your choice of words says it all.

It's ironic that a species that knows everything has to always start their reasoning with assumptions.

Your choice of words shows you handwave such a fundamental principle.

 

[cladking]

Survival of the fittest is not a good descriptive term for the process it describes.

That hardly sounds possible.


But no matter what terms are used you are still assuming that the fit will be preferentially selected by nature even though this can't be predicted in advance or shown after the fact. All individuals are fit. Why would nature waste resources on individuals who won't be selected anyway? Nature does not produce individuals as a food source or marked for death. This is what we do because of our beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's ironic that a species that knows everything has to always start their reasoning with assumptions.

Your choice of words shows you handwave such a fundamental principle.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But no matter what terms are used you are still assuming that the fit will be preferentially selected by nature even though this can't be predicted in advance or shown after the fact.

False.

All individuals are fit.

Very false.

Why would nature waste resources on individuals who won't be selected anyway?

Dumb

Nature does not produce individuals as a food source or marked for death.

 

[cladking]

The irony is believers in science simply can't see other ways of ordering reality, thinking, or assumptions.

And everyone takes their assumptions to the grave as science changes one funeral at a time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And everyone takes their assumptions to the grave as science changes one funeral at a time.

It's called "learning" and "progress".

You should try it sometime.



I always love it when people say "science changes all the time!" as if it is some kind of weakness.

 

[cladking]

Every individual eats other individuals. They do not search their niche seeking the least fit or the less fit. I can just picture a caveman telling his wife he caught the biggest fish he had ever seen but had to let it go because it was too fit for the kids.

 

[YoursTrue]

it is not just idea or speculation only, and haven’t been for 150 years, as it have been substantiated with verifiable evidence, that the theory of Evolution is factual information about biodiversity through genetic variations to speciation.

There are 5 alternative mechanisms to Evolution, and each mechanism have been tested, via observations of evidence, not just with fossils, but more importantly DNA testing, to show common ancestry between species and species, between subspecies and subspecies.

And more important, it has been recognised as science, by other disciplines and fields of Natural Sciences.

The only lying I see are from creationists, particularly YEC creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, who are also creationists pretending not to be creationists, particularly misinformation & propaganda published by organisations like AnswersInGenesis, Creation Ministries International, and the Discovery Institute. It is these organisations and groups of people who spread pseudoscience fantasies.

Tell me, YoursTrue.

is it only Natural Selection you have problem with?

Or do you also have problems with Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow or Genetic Hitchhiking?

Yes it's ideas and speculations. Birds that evolve to larger or smaller beaks still stay birds.

 

[cladking]

It's called "learning" and "progress".

You should try it sometime.



I always love it when people say "science changes all the time!" as if it is some kind of weakness.

You can see no irony can you?

All science is individual because all knowledge and all thought is individual. But each individual takes their beliefs and science to the grave so science never really changes at all does it?

Now that's irony!!!

 

[YoursTrue]

And everyone takes their assumptions to the grave as science changes one funeral at a time.

What I find interesting is that so many people mourn their family members who died, were killed, but don't feel or express that much grief for others who are also killed. Hundreds of thousands killed often but it gets announcement maybe on the news.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They do not search their niche seeking the least fit or the less fit.

It happens automatically.
Lions will catch the slower gazelle more easily then the faster ones.
Predators will spot the less camouflaged more easily then the better camouflages.
Crockodiles will more easily catch the more carelessly drinking antilope then the more careful one.

I can just picture a caveman telling his wife he caught the biggest fish he had ever seen but had to let it go because it was too fit for the kids.

And I don't have to picture an intellectually dishonest science-denier making stupid statements.