Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

[Gharib]

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

I know this topic has been discussed before and i also know that this is a make or break topic for evolution so i would like to discuss this topic of Natural Selection and whether it is a flawed perspective or an accurate and logical one.

I would like to begin by stating that i am a creationist and i do not support evolution due to many of it’s points/arguments being flawed. Needless to say i am not a scientist and i have not gone over the theory evolution from head to toe, but from what i have seen so far the theory of evolution does contain some truth and a great deal of errors. Some of these points will be mentioned later on God willing.

If anyone is interested in a serious discussion then i am looking forward to see what those in support of evolution have to say about it from the evolutionary side of it.

I have some questions regarding the basics of the evolutionary perspectives of Natural Selection and that of Survival of the Fittest.

1. What exactly is Natural Selection according to the theory of evolution? Does it have to do with only the biological/physical traits of a species or is there something more to it.

2. When it is said that only the fittest survive, does this reffer to the fittest animals of a given species (ei. A blind mouse and a mouse that can see, obviously the seeing mouse has better chances of surviving than the blind one) or to the fittest animals from all species (ie. if we take 3 groups of animals such as some lions, some tigers and some zebras and put them in the one envoronment at the same time, the zebras in this case are the weakest and would not survive as long as the tigers and the lions, that being 1 out of 3 possible outcomes)

I would appreciate it if the answers to those questions came from a reliable source.

 

[Skwim]

I don't know about others here, but what you're asking of us is to give you a short course in basic evolution. Maybe others want to go to all the trouble, but for me to explain it and then have to answer (defend?) every point that comes to your mind just isn't worth my time.
I suggest you pick up a book on basic evolution and look into it at your own pace. Then come back with questions on some of the more specific points.

Good Luck

 

[Gharib]

I don't know about others here, but what you're asking of us is to give you a short course in basic evolution. Maybe others want to go to all the trouble, but for me to explain it and then have to answer (defend?) every point that comes to your mind just isn't worth my time.
I suggest you pick up a book on basic evolution and look into it at your own pace. Then come back with questions on some of the more specific points.

Good Luck

a short course, funny . i thought that would be a reasonable way to start this discussion but i guess i could be wrong. no need for the course then i will get straight to the point.

 

[Skwim]

a short course, funny . i thought that would be a reasonable way to start this discussion but i guess i could be wrong. no need for the course then i will get straight to the point.

Fine, but I would stop expecting others to do your homework for you. To wit:

"I would appreciate it if the answers to those questions came from a reliable source."
​

I suggest you look up the reliable sources yourself.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

^^ a reasonable request, actually, since responses here, will either come from such knowledge of sources [which you would ask for citations of, anyway], or, directly from said sources as pasted quotes. In seeking out these books yourself, you can see 'first hand' as it were, what actual scientists really are saying. Since you are a creationist, odds are the only sources you have had are from anything BUT reliable scientific sources.

 

[Copernicus]

1. What exactly is Natural Selection according to the theory of evolution? Does it have to do with only the biological/physical traits of a species or is there something more to it.

Eselam, you understand what breeders do. People have been breeding plants and animals for millennia. What breeders do, is they select some trait that they find desirable--say, dogs that have short snouts. They then cause dogs with short snouts to breed and produce offspring with shorter and shorter snouts. Call this "artificial selection", because people with a purpose in mind cause it to happen.

Natural selection is much the same process, except nature is the breeder. People who live in very sunny climates develop darkly pigmented skin, because the melatonin protects them from damage caused by the sun. The way it works is that people with darker skins tend to survive slightly longer than those with lighter skins, and they therefore produce statistically more offspring. Instead of an intelligent breeder causing dark-skinned people to breed, the environment naturally "prefers" or selects for such people.

2. When it is said that only the fittest survive, does this reffer to the fittest animals of a given species (ei. A blind mouse and a mouse that can see, obviously the seeing mouse has better chances of surviving than the blind one) or to the fittest animals from all species (ie. if we take 3 groups of animals such as some lions, some tigers and some zebras and put them in the one envoronment at the same time, the zebras in this case are the weakest and would not survive as long as the tigers and the lions, that being 1 out of 3 possible outcomes)

The key question is what determines "fitness". Tigers are predators, so traits that make it easier to catch prey will make them "fit". Zebras are not predators, so what makes them fit are traits that help them avoid getting caught, e.g. camouflage coloring. Predators tend to kill off more of those who are not so good at hiding, so the ones that survive will leave offspring with their superior camouflage. Notice how the eyes of predators tend to face forward, since they need to focus on what they pursue. The eyes of non-predators tend to be on opposite sides of the head, which gives them the advantage of being better able to notice approaching danger. Look at the eyes on lions and tigers, and compare them to those on zebras.

I would appreciate it if the answers to those questions came from a reliable source.

If that is so, then you probably should seek out articles and books written by experts. Asking people on the internet to explain such fundamental concepts to you is not the most reliable strategy.

 

[Gharib]

Eselam, you understand what breeders do. People have been breeding plants and animals for millennia. What breeders do, is they select some trait that they find desirable--say, dogs that have short snouts. They then cause dogs with short snouts to breed and produce offspring with shorter and shorter snouts. Call this "artificial selection", because people with a purpose in mind cause it to happen.

Natural selection is much the same process, except nature is the breeder. People who live in very sunny climates develop darkly pigmented skin, because the melatonin protects them from damage caused by the sun. The way it works is that people with darker skins tend to survive slightly longer than those with lighter skins, and they therefore produce statistically more offspring. Instead of an intelligent breeder causing dark-skinned people to breed, the environment naturally "prefers" or selects for such people.

thanks for the explanation but i know this stuff, what i was asking for is whether natural selection is only about this sort of stuff or is there more to it than just the physical/biological traits of a creature/species?

The key question is what determines "fitness". Tigers are predators, so traits that make it easier to catch prey will make them "fit". Zebras are not predators, so what makes them fit are traits that help them avoid getting caught, e.g. camouflage coloring. Predators tend to kill off more of those who are not so good at hiding, so the ones that survive will leave offspring with their superior camouflage. Notice how the eyes of predators tend to face forward, since they need to focus on what they pursue. The eyes of non-predators tend to be on opposite sides of the head, which gives them the advantage of being better able to notice approaching danger. Look at the eyes on lions and tigers, and compare them to those on zebras.

as for this you make a good point, you are on track to answering my question. ie, does survival of the fittest refer to the fittest animals of that one particular group or the fittest animals out of all the animal groups? but i guess it is both because even though a tiger might be the fittest within the group of tigers it may not be able to survive any longer than the rest of the tigers if there is no food available.

If that is so, then you probably should seek out articles and books written by experts. Asking people on the internet to explain such fundamental concepts to you is not the most reliable strategy.

ok you make a good point.

 

[Looncall]

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

I know this topic has been discussed before and i also know that this is a make or break topic for evolution so i would like to discuss this topic of Natural Selection and whether it is a flawed perspective or an accurate and logical one.

I would like to begin by stating that i am a creationist and i do not support evolution due to many of it’s points/arguments being flawed. Needless to say i am not a scientist and i have not gone over the theory evolution from head to toe, but from what i have seen so far the theory of evolution does contain some truth and a great deal of errors. Some of these points will be mentioned later on God willing.

If anyone is interested in a serious discussion then i am looking forward to see what those in support of evolution have to say about it from the evolutionary side of it.

I have some questions regarding the basics of the evolutionary perspectives of Natural Selection and that of Survival of the Fittest.

1. What exactly is Natural Selection according to the theory of evolution? Does it have to do with only the biological/physical traits of a species or is there something more to it.

2. When it is said that only the fittest survive, does this reffer to the fittest animals of a given species (ei. A blind mouse and a mouse that can see, obviously the seeing mouse has better chances of surviving than the blind one) or to the fittest animals from all species (ie. if we take 3 groups of animals such as some lions, some tigers and some zebras and put them in the one envoronment at the same time, the zebras in this case are the weakest and would not survive as long as the tigers and the lions, that being 1 out of 3 possible outcomes)

I would appreciate it if the answers to those questions came from a reliable source.

Actually, the basic idea is a very simple algorithm which you will find in any reputable book on evolution.

It goes something like this:

Individuals in populations vary (children are not identical to their parents).

Some variations make individuals more likely to survive and reproduce in their current environment.

Since the variations are inheritable, they will spread into the population.

Therefore, the traits of the population will change through time.

The natural selection part is "more likely to survive and reproduce in their current environment". There is nothing mystical about it.

You say you do not support evolution. Tell me what could prevent the above from taking place?

 

[camanintx]

2. When it is said that only the fittest survive, does this reffer to the fittest animals of a given species (ei. A blind mouse and a mouse that can see, obviously the seeing mouse has better chances of surviving than the blind one) or to the fittest animals from all species (ie. if we take 3 groups of animals such as some lions, some tigers and some zebras and put them in the one envoronment at the same time, the zebras in this case are the weakest and would not survive as long as the tigers and the lions, that being 1 out of 3 possible outcomes)

The only measure of fitness in evolution is an organisms ability to perpetuate it's genetic information to future generations. Bacteria are some of the simplest organisms but are surprisingly adept at reproducing which is why they are the most abundant organism on this planet.

Evolution is also a pass-fail proposition, either you reproduce or you do not. It doesn't grade animals on a curve, which is why so many different species are able to survive in a given environment.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm curious to find out what straw man will be set up under this guise of a sincere request for education.

 

[painted wolf]

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

I know this topic has been discussed before and i also know that this is a make or break topic for evolution so i would like to discuss this topic of Natural Selection and whether it is a flawed perspective or an accurate and logical one.

I would like to begin by stating that i am a creationist and i do not support evolution due to many of it’s points/arguments being flawed. Needless to say i am not a scientist and i have not gone over the theory evolution from head to toe, but from what i have seen so far the theory of evolution does contain some truth and a great deal of errors. Some of these points will be mentioned later on God willing.

If anyone is interested in a serious discussion then i am looking forward to see what those in support of evolution have to say about it from the evolutionary side of it.

I have some questions regarding the basics of the evolutionary perspectives of Natural Selection and that of Survival of the Fittest.

1. What exactly is Natural Selection according to the theory of evolution? Does it have to do with only the biological/physical traits of a species or is there something more to it.

Natural Selection is the natural process where some individuals traits are more likely to spread through the population than others.
In other words if a trait is beneficial those that have it, are more likely to survive and pass it on... over time more individuals in the population will have that trait.

2. When it is said that only the fittest survive, does this reffer to the fittest animals of a given species (ei. A blind mouse and a mouse that can see, obviously the seeing mouse has better chances of surviving than the blind one) or to the fittest animals from all species (ie. if we take 3 groups of animals such as some lions, some tigers and some zebras and put them in the one envoronment at the same time, the zebras in this case are the weakest and would not survive as long as the tigers and the lions, that being 1 out of 3 possible outcomes)

both... except that the zebra isn't really the weakest.
When dealing with predators and prey you have a more complex relationship. You will actually find more competition between the lions and tigers. Especially as the zebra start to become harder to find.

What you see between predators and prey is when one goes up the other goes down with predator populations lagging behind their prey. Like so:

I would appreciate it if the answers to those questions came from a reliable source.

I hope this helps.

wa:do

ps... I should add that "fitness" isn't simply being strong or fast... it can be smarts or willingness to work well with others. "Fitness" varies from species to species and from one circumstance to another. When running from a lion fitness is measured by speed or agility... when finding food during a drought running fast won't increase your fitness.

 

[gnostic]

To eselam:

First thing you should know is that Natural Selection is just ONE evolutionary mechanism and theory. There other evolutionary mechanisms. The others are: Mutation, Gene Flow, Gene Drift, and something else that I can't remember.

Despite these newer mechanisms and alternative theories, natural selection is still accepted and valid today. But getting back to your OP about natural selection.

What you have to understand about natural selection is that it relate to the ability to reproduce and survive.

Survival of the Fittest is not about the strongest or the smartest, but the ability to adapt or to change in a changing environment. It is also dependence on the passing genes to offspring (or passing trait to population).

I have not read all the posts here, but I am quite sure that some have given you good examples, how creature (including humans) - strong and weak, big and small, preys and predators - survive, because they manage to adapt to changes or to the environments they live in.

A weak creature can survive, if they have the natural ability to hide from predators. But camouflage can also work well for the predators too.

On the islands of Galápagos, there are 2 breeds of tortoises. On one island, the tortoises can feed themselves at low lying leaves. While on the other island, the tortoise have longer neck, which it can make itself taller, by bending or craning it neck upward, so that they can feed from plant leaves that were higher off the ground. The tortoises on the 2nd island have adapted to change. The islands are close together, and yet there is subtle difference between the two. (See Wlkipedia, Galápagos Tortoise, particularly Shell Shape, to see different tortoises.)

 

[idea]

1. What exactly is Natural Selection

As a creationist, you might be more interested in learning about artificial selection, rather than natural selection AKA Intelligent Design. Some would like to think that intelligence has nothing to do with it. I think intelligence has everything to do with it.

see: Artificial selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instead of calling it :"intelligent design" some call it "artificial selection" - but it is the same thing. Did you intelligently decide who to have kids with? where to live? what to eat? then you and your kids are the product of artificial selection.

intelligence/mind/conscience/spirit - call it what you will, but it exists. we are more than just matter and energy (a bouncing ball has matter and energy) we are endowed with intelligence - we have the ability to think/act/change. That intelligence which animates our own flesh comes from our Father, and is a witness to those things which are not seen.

2. When it is said that only the fittest survive.

here's a good read:
Survival of the fittest? Anthropologist suggests the nicest prevail — not just the selfish | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis

 

[Alceste]

I would like to begin by stating that i am a creationist and i do not support evolution due to many of it’s points/arguments being flawed.

Please be honest, you do not support evolution because you are starting your journey as a creationist who knows almost nothing about biology, not because you have discovered the theory of evolution is "flawed".

Needless to say i am not a scientist and i have not gone over the theory evolution from head to toe.

There. Was that so hard?

1. What exactly is Natural Selection according to the theory of evolution? Does it have to do with only the biological/physical traits of a species or is there something more to it.

Natural selection has to do with the likeliness of any given organism surviving long enough to pass on its unique set of genes to a new generation. This is the easiest facet of evolution for the amateur to grasp: the more babies you have, the more likely it is that your unique genetic traits will endure in subsequent generations.

2. When it is said that only the fittest survive, does this reffer to the fittest animals of a given species (ei. A blind mouse and a mouse that can see, obviously the seeing mouse has better chances of surviving than the blind one) or to the fittest animals from all species (ie. if we take 3 groups of animals such as some lions, some tigers and some zebras and put them in the one envoronment at the same time, the zebras in this case are the weakest and would not survive as long as the tigers and the lions, that being 1 out of 3 possible outcomes)

It isn't ever said that "only the fittest survive". It is only said that the individuals who are best adapted to reproduce given the unique challenges of the environment in which they live are most likely to reproduce.

I would appreciate it if the answers to those questions came from a reliable source.

Are the two concepts above really so complex that I need to provide citations? Do you disagree with my claim that individuals who are most likely to reproduce are more likely to reproduce? If not, there is no need to cite anything and we can move on to the concept of genetic drift.

 

[Gharib]

thanks to all that have replied an have answered my questions, some good explanations have been given.

now i will make some questions which i believe will form the topics of this discussion:

although the big bang theory has little to do with natural selection, i will at some stage make mention of it as it has to do with my questions so to does the theory of evolution itself. here go the questions:

1. how do evolutionists explain the soul?
if we go from the big bang theory up to our present time, all that scientists (namely atheists who do not accept the creation story) speak about the outer layer of man/living creatures, what about the soul and how did it get in us in the first place (this is where i go back to the big bang theory and evolution). let me tell you one fact about the soul from the creation side of the story, the body although it is still perfectly functioning biologically, it stops functioning physically ie. it is dead, yet functions? if none of you can accept the soul as real, then please explain this from the evolutionist/scientific/atheistic perspective of how one can be dead but at the same time they are "living".

Note: i am not of those people who think that the loss of weight of about 23 grams has anything to do with the soul, the loss of weight is due to the "last breath" that comes out of the body. the soul does not affect the weight of the body, just as electricity does not affect the weight of a mobile phone, whether it is plugged in or the battery is full it will still weight the same as when the battery dies out.

i will leave it at this first question so as to make it easier to keep up and reply to all those who will be posting, if some posts have similar questions then i will answer the post that was made first. although this question might have little or nothing to do with natural selection i believe it is still valid because it has to do with evolution.

 

[camanintx]

1. how do evolutionists explain the soul?
if we go from the big bang theory up to our present time, all that scientists (namely atheists who do not accept the creation story) speak about the outer layer of man/living creatures, what about the soul and how did it get in us in the first place (this is where i go back to the big bang theory and evolution). let me tell you one fact about the soul from the creation side of the story, the body although it is still perfectly functioning biologically, it stops functioning physically ie. it is dead, yet functions? if none of you can accept the soul as real, then please explain this from the evolutionist/scientific/atheistic perspective of how one can be dead but at the same time they are "living".

What you call the "soul" could be no more than a pattern in the neurons of our brain. Just as a functional computer won't do anything without software, our bodies will stop functioning without the proper pattern. Nothing even begins to suggest that this pattern can exist independently of the body.

 

[Krok]

1. how do evolutionists explain the soul?

Every "Evolutionist", as does every creationist, says something different about the soul. Some say it goes to God through Jesus after death, others say it goes to Allah through Muhammed after death, others say it gets reincarnated, others say soul don't exist. So many "evolutionists"; so many opinions. The Theory of Evolution itself says nothing about souls.

 

[Quintessence]

thanks for the explanation but i know this stuff, what i was asking for is whether natural selection is only about this sort of stuff or is there more to it than just the physical/biological traits of a creature/species?

Evolution is only a theory in the biological sciences that helps to explain the diversity of life. Natural selection - which as mentioned is only one aspect of evolutionary theory - is a major cornerstone to understanding everything in the subject of biology. It's like our theory of gravity. Very little of biology makes sense without the theory of evolution.

You asked later about the soul? Evolution has nothing to do with souls. The soul is a metaphysical concept and science does not comment on metaphysical concepts nor does it attribute causality to such concepts. What Camanintx said is sort of correct, except it seems to suggest that science could prove the soul doesn't exist. This isn't the case; science simply cannot seek explanations grounded in metaphysical concepts, so its explanation for phenomena religious/spiritualities attribute to the soul would be to the brain instead. Either way, it has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

thanks to all that have replied an have answered my questions, some good explanations have been given.

now i will make some questions which i believe will form the topics of this discussion:

although the big bang theory has little to do with natural selection, i will at some stage make mention of it as it has to do with my questions so to does the theory of evolution itself. here go the questions:

1. how do evolutionists explain the soul?
if we go from the big bang theory up to our present time, all that scientists (namely atheists who do not accept the creation story) speak about the outer layer of man/living creatures, what about the soul and how did it get in us in the first place (this is where i go back to the big bang theory and evolution). let me tell you one fact about the soul from the creation side of the story, the body although it is still perfectly functioning biologically, it stops functioning physically ie. it is dead, yet functions? if none of you can accept the soul as real, then please explain this from the evolutionist/scientific/atheistic perspective of how one can be dead but at the same time they are "living".

Note: i am not of those people who think that the loss of weight of about 23 grams has anything to do with the soul, the loss of weight is due to the "last breath" that comes out of the body. the soul does not affect the weight of the body, just as electricity does not affect the weight of a mobile phone, whether it is plugged in or the battery is full it will still weight the same as when the battery dies out.

i will leave it at this first question so as to make it easier to keep up and reply to all those who will be posting, if some posts have similar questions then i will answer the post that was made first. although this question might have little or nothing to do with natural selection i believe it is still valid because it has to do with evolution.

Evolution says nothing about a soul... that is a topic for religion. Since a soul can't be measured, observed or even really defined, it has no place in science.

Each religion has a different view on what a soul is and who has one... for example my religion says that everything has a soul while others insist only humans have a soul.

wa:do

 

[Alex_G]

1. What exactly is Natural Selection according to the theory of evolution? Does it have to do with only the biological/physical traits of a species or is there something more to it.

Natural selection refers to the effect the environment has on the successful reproduction of organisms, such that traits that are suited to the specific environment and that play an active role in survival and successful reproduction will be the ones passed on, and statistically within a population, such traits will slowly become more widespread, as worse traits die out. Traits as selected by 'nature'.

You get many mechanisms producing genetic variation within a population, such as random allele combination, mutations and crossing over of chromosomes, which results in a number of similar but subtly different organisms, to be tested out in the environment. Its interesting to note how the rate of evolution picked up in the past when sexual reproduction emerged, as before that, asexual reproduction was producing far less variation, relying pretty much solely on random mutation and thus much less opportunity for changes occurred.

2. When it is said that only the fittest survive, does this reffer to the fittest animals of a given species (ei. A blind mouse and a mouse that can see, obviously the seeing mouse has better chances of surviving than the blind one) or to the fittest animals from all species (ie. if we take 3 groups of animals such as some lions, some tigers and some zebras and put them in the one environment at the same time, the zebras in this case are the weakest and would not survive as long as the tigers and the lions, that being 1 out of 3 possible outcomes)

Fitness just means an ability to survive and successfully reproduce within an environment. It doesn’t just refer to any specific faculty or feature arbitrarily, anything that plays a role in successful survival and reproduction will be considered an aspect of the organisms 'fitness'.

Think of it in terms of each individual organism, who will be struggling with the climate and environment, the acquisition of food which might involve competition with prey, others within their own species or other similar creatures after the same food source, not to mention courtship and finding a mate. So everything in the individual's environment could play a role in what traits are considered most advantageous in terms of survival and successful reproduction. Those more 'fit' in an interbreeding population will pass on their genes, and the traits will become more widespread if they continue to be advantageous.

As a cool example, sickle cell anaemia is an autosomal recessive genetic condition, which is not beneficial to the health of the individual causing complication that includes fatigue, clots/strokes, chest pain, tissue ischaemia with end organ damage and more. But it turns out that in Africa, where the prevalence of malaria is high, individuals with sickle cell are protected from the effects of malaria, with those having the genetic condition less likely to die. Such that in non-malaria countries sickle cell is a profound weakness, in the context of malaria and its powerful effects as a selection pressure it becomes a reletively strong trait. (as people die of malaria much more that sickle cell). It just demonstrating that 'fitness' is specific and quite relative to the environment.

1. how do evolutionists explain the soul?

Well this assumes a soul to exist in the first place, which there is no evidence for. Equally im sure you can appreciate how ill-defined such a thing is depending on whether your wearing a secular or religious hat.
If your talking religiously about a soul, you've already provided a built in guarantee that its not explainable by natural means, but that provides no positive evidence for the specific religious explanation in the first place.

Personality, character, warmth, individuality, creativity, rational thought, emotions, pain and happiness, aspirations, ambitions, fear, compassion and empathy. All these things describe what, at least in part it means to be human. Now if all that 'soul' means is to be a creature that indeed has this sort of life, then we could begin to describe how faculties that allow such things to manifest might have arisen by evolution and natural selection. But to jump to a divine conclusion about such facts of human life and expect a rational science to talk in those terms isnt right.

The religious zealot and the calculating secular scientist might very well be talking about the same thing when we say 'soul' and human nature, or at least have views that ultimately stem from or inspired by the same facts of life. It just boils down to a fundamental difference in perspective and the conclusions drawn. So the religious understanding and conclusion of human nature being the classic soul, although science has nothing to say about that conclusion, it can still comment on the human nature from which the very concept of a soul is inspired.

Alex