Humans excluded from survival of the fittest?
Wither you believe in Evolution or Creation, one thing that we can prove and see from science is “survival of the fittest.” It’s the one aspect of Darwinian Evolution that is supported by science and therefore is not an issue of contention between humanists and Christians.
The concept is that people, creatures, plants etc that have certain attributes that make them suitable for life in a certain environment thrive and reproduce, therefore passing on the characteristics to their offspring.
Therefore a rabbit that has a coloring allowing it to hide from predators is more likely to survive and breed than one who stands out.
This has been true with humans and animals since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (when death first entered the world). However, there is a trend in today’s society that talented, successful, gifted people forgo having a family in order to pursue their success. Often times, those who are most successful have no kids. In such a case, those genes that may have given that person the edge needed to be successful are not passed on, therefore circumventing this natural law.
Now, I’ll quickly amend that I am adamantly opposed to eugenics or the classification of people by their genetic makeup. However, I find something wrong with the idea that people don’t want to pass on the heritage (both genetic and learned) that made them successful.
Thank you for the dialog! Three semi-related points:
On S of the Fittest
Survival of the fittest isn’t what we as a society holds to be most fit but, what is most able to adapt to the environment, for instance: smokers ruin their lungs with their cancer sticks, but if the environment turned to a carbon and tar atmosphere, something that may favor their destroyed lungs (don’t ask me how) then perhaps smokers might be more fit than those with “healthy lungs” (bad example, please don’t give some scientific-my-favorite-show-is-CSI-reason for why I’m wrong). The point is our social fitness is not the same as survival of the fittest as it doesn’t take our combined agreement to make it so, if it is, it just is.
On Social fitness…
What the comments have been eluding to are seeds of Social Darwinism, which have lead to scientific breakthroughs such as Crainiology (~1850s), where logically (and scientifically at the time) the size of the brain meant greater intelligence, and the size of the skull meant greater brain size, thus because men had larger heads than women and black people, they were more intelligent; the more intelligent were more fit, therefore Intelligent White men should rule (a racist-sexist-technocracy).
On the Natural state of Man
Survival of the fittest may be the way of nature, but when we state that “you and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals”, we are stating that the natural state of man is acceptable and should not be hindered. If survival of the fittest is that which governs all of nature, including the mammal man, then Social fitness should be acceptable as well, as we are just part of a structured system of mutational anarchy. Social fitness follows suit with Survival of the fittest and is perfectly acceptable, yet for some reason Man hates Racism and Fascism and will go to all lengths to protect against it. It must be those Stupid Christians and their Stupid Morality always trying to tell us how to live. When will they figure it out?
Science is truthiest
This article is no more about Adam and Eve than it is about rabbits. You can choose to read “Adam and Eve” in the above text as figurative of early humans if you like without changing the message here.
The underlying thought behind the original post is that our culture is glorifying the single bachelor’s lifestyle and creating an environment that is increasingly antagonistic towards the traditional family. If a person doesn’t want to have kids, fine, they probably shouldn’t. But it bugs me that the aforementioned lifestyle is raised up while the familial lifestyle is portrayed as a necessary drudgery.
Yes, I know, you’d really have to read between the lines to see that in there.
But think for a moment about the movies and tv shows you’ve seen recently. What is the image portrayed of single adults? Sexy, modern, intelligent, well dressed, wealthy… What is the image portrayed of fathers? Disconnected, exasperated, ineffective, overwhelmed… which would you want to be?
We are reading an article that discusses Adam and Eve and people are responding by attempting to say that “Survival of the fittest” is false? Show me the proof of Adam & Eve…
In business, Survival of the fittest applies to people. Physically it does not as much as in the past because science and medicine have intervened. People who used to fall victim to germs and illnesses are now surviving and reproducing. It actually has weakened humanity as a whole genetically, but vaccines make us resistant and therefore stronger.
It does still apply to humans. Those with weaker immune systems do still die. Those with compromised immune systems die. Just because our killer is microscopic does not mean we are not being naturally weeded out.
? Survival of the fittest is false, since the fittest human beings are not out-reproducing the less fit, and haven’t been for some time. Since survival of the fittest is supposed to describe all of nature, and since man is a counterexample to it, it just isn’t true. This is one aspect of the Darwin package that is clearly false. I don’t know how much else hangs on it, but…
Just because there are outliers doesn’t mean the whole theory is wrong. Also, survival of the fittest (aka “natural selection”) doesn’t prove darwinian evolution or the theory that single cells became animals became humans. Here is a good link that explains it from both a Christian and scientific viewpoint: [Natural Select vs. Evolution](http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution).
Here is an article written by Dr. Georgia Purdom about [bacteria supposedly evolving in lab](http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye). It’s not evolution, it’s survival of the fittest.
Here I go posting an off-topic reply to my own post.
But it is an interesting read.
Instead of “fittest”, use “fit enough”:
“Survival of the fit enough.”
That is to say, if an organism is able to reproduce, it was “successful” and “fit”.
So if a wealthy bachelor never has children, in a very real Darwinian sense he was “unfit”.
However, if he has even one illegitimate child, we can now call him “fit”.
We need to understand that when speaking of the natural world, we need to disengage our lexical prejudices, in particular when looking at our own species through the lens of science. When you say a wealthy person is “fit”, you are understood in common conversation; but when you attempt to follow a scientific thread of thought and use words carelessly, there can be a great deal of misunderstandings and unintentional straw-men.
This is tale which tells what recessive genes hold, what inbreeding cause’s and what degenerate animals look like.
A male lion breeds with a female tiger, makes a liger of great size!
2
a male leopard breed with a female lion brings forth a leopon. Which not only has the size and strength of the lion but also has the climbing abilities of the leopard.
3
All that has so far been said, is recognized by science.
4
Now into the realm of what has not yet been ‘validated’ (by science).
5
All the other cats are said to interbreed
from time to time.
6
The division of Species is based on the idea that, only members of the same ‘Species’ can indeed breed.
But if all cats ( including the Egyptian house cat) can breed, they are not different Species but only subspecies of the original cat.
Now, if the liger is bigger and the leopon is of the same size and better. Then it comes to reason that the original cat from off the Ark was a super cat.
Scientists say that the “extra” abilities that come out of these ‘hybrids’ are caused by “recessive genes”
Recessive Genes are created by inbreeding.
Now here is the part that might interest a historian.
Gen 7:2
“Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.”
In this I think that the clean animals were allowed to descend without inbreeding and therefore pure. While the others were forced into inbreeding, which caused their abilities to go into ‘Recessive genes’. The ancients had enough trouble with the lions, tigers, etc. So this might have been set to preserve man. Did you know that in India they breed the wild dog with the wolf to get a bigger breed. This alone means nothing, except that there is a story whcih appeared shortly after the flood. No later that 500 years, or 600, or 700, etc, after the flood. The story told of a great king who had wolves so great that his men were able to ride upon them, for they were far greater than any horse.
Maybe I’m going nowhere, but if only two cats, two dogs, two bears, etc, walked off the Ark. Then I say that it would immediately force inbreeding, which in turn would force abilities to go into recessive genes. And (to the point) would force the super Cat to degenerate into the lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah and house cat that we have today.
I’m sorry I couldn’t help joking and calling the lion and tiger a degenerate.
“In the production of pure breeds of sheep, cattle, hogs, and horses inbreeding has frequently been practiced extensively, and where in such cases selection has been made of the more vigorous offspring as parents, it is doubtful whether any diminution in size, vigor, or fertility has resulted. Nevertheless it very frequently happens that when two pure breeds are crossed, the offspring surpass either pure race in size and vigor.”
Sudden Origins by Jeffrey H. Schwartz
The tiger is either a pure breed are a degenerate species!
Or I say.
They are one and the same..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Else, the reason why the clean were in sevens as opposed to the others.
Genetic research (and this basic reasoning and breeding) has shown that every type of wolf, dog, fox and coyote etc. came from the 1 original wolf.
Scott, John Paul and John L. Fuller Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog
Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs and Related Canines (Hardcover) by Michael W. Fox
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca)
“Mitochondrial Eve is the ………..common ancestor (MRCA) of all human via the mitochondrial DNA pathway . In other words, she is the MRCA found when ancestry of all living humans is traced back in time, following only the maternal lineage. Mitochondrial DNA pathway is equivalent to maternal lineage, because Mitochondrial DNA is only passed down from mother to child, never father to child. [1]”
Camel-Llama-alpaca
All known subspecies of the “horse” are known to breed!
1 Last thing.
this theory is observable & testable, in that you can breed new ‘breeds’ of dogs in just a few years. But each of these will have less ‘ablities’ than the last.
Just take 2 dogs (of your choice) & place them in a zoo. Now there children will be fine but as there children breed with each other you will see the same thing happen. Only it will go ten times further than before.
Kentish Son
I am sending this into the world because I want to get the word out.