If we believe fully in the process of evolution, then why is it that some people are born with abnormalities? Should evolution and "survival of the fittest" have resullted in perfect human bodies and minds every time?
Imperfect evolution?
- Thread starter SpicySamosa
- Start date
No offense, but you obviously don't understand evolution very well. One of the key parts of evolution is that within every generation there is variation among the offspring. The offspring whose variation makes them best suited to survive will pass along their traits - the ones whose variation makes them poorly suited to survive usually die.
If people were always born without abnormalities it would be major evidence against evolution, because evolution can only occur if there's variation.
If people were always born without abnormalities it would be major evidence against evolution, because evolution can only occur if there's variation.
SpicySamosa said:
Not all of us.
Basically because; shit happens. Enviromental factors, incomptetent care of the fetus during incubation period, malinant genes passed down etc etc.
Evolution ensures survival of a species through physical changes over time...not healthy offspring every time.
The core of the evolutionary process is irrefutable. The environment consists of conditions that allow for survival of those fit to survive given those conditions. If a mutant is born without lungs, they die unless some other means is found by which to provide oxygen to that creature. If you aren't fit to survive, you don't. It's pretty simple.
That said, those that don't seem fit to survive on their own survive because elements of society compensate for the lacking ability of those who are unfit to survive without that assistance.
That said, those that don't seem fit to survive on their own survive because elements of society compensate for the lacking ability of those who are unfit to survive without that assistance.
The result of evolution is individual organisms that can cope with their environment. To be perfect would be an evolutionary deadend, because the environment is never exactly the same or predictable. Organisms therefore evolved to merely cope just about with their environment. There cannot be evolution passed coping since to cope means to survive. To have a perfect adaptation that gives the same result as a adaptation that copes is not possible. You can think of it as a threshold effect. Once past the threshold there is no point to evolve more.
Perfect organisms would be evidence for the creationist intelligent design theory.'
Our asses never evolved passed the coping point. That is why we get hemorrhoids.The bloodvessels in our ass evolved to cope with walking upright (more pressure). But there was no reason to evolve perfectly because hemorrhoids will not really makes you less fit. They might be a bit uncomfortable once in a while.
Perfect organisms would be evidence for the creationist intelligent design theory.'
Our asses never evolved passed the coping point. That is why we get hemorrhoids.The bloodvessels in our ass evolved to cope with walking upright (more pressure). But there was no reason to evolve perfectly because hemorrhoids will not really makes you less fit. They might be a bit uncomfortable once in a while.
Nope, evolution and natural selection is the increased chance of survival by passing on the most effective genetics. For example a mouse may have a faulty gene which allows it to run faster, thus increasing its chances for escaping predators, but also shortens its lifespan slightly, being more likely to evade predators and pass this on means the shortened lifespan is passed with it. So for perfect evolution every breeding pair would have to be 100% perfect and lucky enough to avoid a single mutation incase it is harmful, everything would have had to start perfect and remain perfect which is a contradiction as evolution would then not be a requirement. Also it would take an incredably long time to reach anything close to perfection. Finally, things evolve only to adapt to their current environment and any changes in it can make short work of destroying a species, like an ice age would do to most creatures.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Occasionally a creature or plant develop a form so well suited to their environment they undergo virtually no change. If the environment they have adapted to is general in character and comparatively unchanging they will remain unchanged. They are close to perfect and so they cease evolving. The classic example is the brachiopod Lingula which has remained essentially the same for over 500 million years.earlier posters said:
I'll clarify my part of the original quote, in the beginning everything would have had to be perfect and remain so, many things slow down evolving after they have already evolved to suit their environment, but a sudden change in climate and again evolution comes into effect, but you're correct some things havnt changed much for millions of years such as sharks, alligators and many plants and sea life im sure(but i think they are still minutely evolving even if its not so obvious as other creatures evolution).
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I wasn't seeking to challenge your contention, but rather to reinforce it, by demonstrating that in those rare cases where near perfection occurs (and the environment remains unchanged) then evolution virtually ceases. And you are right, small evolutionary changes have occured even to Lingula. Sharks, as you suggest, are another good example.
Which makes me recall that there are perfect forms that evolution will always tend to gravitate towards. Thus, cartilagenous fishes, bony fishes, ichthyosauurs, and dolphins are all fish shaped. [I would mention the eye, which has evolved independently many times, but research has shown that mention of the eye on sciforums causes the spontaneous generation of colonies of Ida's (Intelligent Design Adherents)]
Which makes me recall that there are perfect forms that evolution will always tend to gravitate towards. Thus, cartilagenous fishes, bony fishes, ichthyosauurs, and dolphins are all fish shaped. [I would mention the eye, which has evolved independently many times, but research has shown that mention of the eye on sciforums causes the spontaneous generation of colonies of Ida's (Intelligent Design Adherents)]
I wasnt sure what you was getting at to be honest, but it made me notice my original quote was lacking something, and i decided it needed a slight correction before someone did challenge it (if it wasnt going to be you someone else would have im sure), so thankyou for the comments either way and it seems i do quite agree with you.
Also people seem to forget how long evolution takes for even simple creatures and it is slightly dependent on how other creatures evolve.