You are right but don't waste time trying to convince SAM; she has made her mind up. As you say, fitness in the Darwinian sense, is a question of how an organism adapts or fails to adapt to changes in its environment.
Do atheists believe in survival of the fittest?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You are right but don't waste time trying to convince SAM; she has made her mind up. As you say, fitness in the Darwinian sense, is a question of how an organism adapts or fails to adapt to changes in its environment.
But that only applies to reproduction. After reproducing, everyone is just so much trash parasiting on resources. So survival has nothing to do with age then, only with the ability to reproduce and keep offspring alive. So I'm wondering, would a shorter lifespan and earlier pregnancies with a larger number of children be more fitting?
Isn't it less fit to be having kids at an older age, when more DNA damage has accumulated?
yes sam
we as a species discourage the practice
we are further restricted by a biological process called menopause
its really not as if we have much choice in the matter
secondly, the hated evolutionists cover their asses by introducing the grandmother hypothesis
Old age is a survival benefit because a big advantage for humans is learned behavior, and adults accumulate knowledge that can help the young. Also, grandparents are natural babysitters, which confers an advantage to the babysitter's own genes, which their offspring share in part.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You mean like insects.. ?
If you are a large animal there might be distinct disadvantages to a short life cycle.
Also, for humans, what Gustav said.
Does the grandmother hypothesis protect the fetus from the effects of late age parturition?
Menopause would seem to do that.
Not at all old son - I just don't suffer fools gladly and am prepared to take their foolishness to task - that other posters might share my view is hardly my problem - get over it
Humans can circumvent nature, due to our intellect.
So the notion of fitness is mere whimsy?
The dynamics of evolution will play out no matter what we do, but it is affected by our collective action. The anachronistic idea of fitness is now understood to act on the level of the gene. Those genes that code for a body that enable the genes to proliferate will become more common in the gene pool.
Ah so fitness is an anachronistic idea whose time has gone. Its no longer relevant. Those with more kids surviving longer are irrelevant to survival. HRT and abortions are an indication of the superior intellect of man overcoming the vagaries of nature.
Is that why immigration from the places where reproduction is rampant is required to sustain the economy of the intellectuals?
If you are talking about human lifespanin the West ,you are overlooking the fact that we are livinig longer because of diet and medical science. We are fighting the system, so to speak. This is not so in many third-world countries.No need to worry about a shorter lifespan; We are living well beyond our reproductive years
You are wrong to conflate HRT and abortion with what wee are supposed to be discussing. But we do battle against nature; just consider the diseases that would have been fatal not all that long ago but which can now often be overcome. We are not passive spectators.
Now you are just being a troll.
Not at all, I agree with you that evolution is becoming redundant.
We no longer define survival by reproductive potential.
SAM said:
Once again, as is periodically necessary when dealing with theists in any discussion involving evolution: It's not the organism that survives, or reproduces.
The entire thread is a trolling operation. The only question is whether it's deliberately so - or maybe, whether it can be deflected into an actual arena of discussion.spidergoat said: