Does the Evolution Theory cliche =The survival of the fittest .does it have a reallistic meaning?
459932
Granted "survival of the fittest" is a poor way to characterize natural selection. For one reason it's a bit circular in logic. It is also important to point out that what natural selection maximizes (optimizes really) is numbers of babies, not survival of the individual. Genes that lead to traits in individuals that cause them to have more offspring than individuals without those genes are more common in the next generation (=evolution). The logic of this, as you can see, is unassailable. So while being able to survive means you can live to have more children, it's really about having the children, not survival per se.\n\nAs to your other point (about individuals dying), as I said the individual doesn't matter for evolution, only how many offspring are produced (including their quality and when they are produced). So there is no inherent benefit to living longer unless it allows you to produce more offspring. In fact evolutionary theory has explained why we age and it is something of an inevitable fact of life unfortunately. Different organisms have different average longevities that have evolved based on that particular species' schedule of reproduction and mortality, but all organisms (sexual organisms) will inevitably age and die. The explanation for the evolution of ageing is a very elegant one and not hard to understand, but I won't go into it here. If you search the web using the terms "evolution senescence" you should find it if you are interested.
958096
I think its true. The human mind cannot be compared to those of animals and therefore the simple view of the natural selection in which the idea of selecting mates on the basis of physical attributes as in the case of animals cannot be applied here.For the world that we have created around us there is no place for those who are mentally weak. This is natural selection at its best. It shows how complicated the whole mechanism is. The term "survival of the fittest" can not just be applied to physically fit, it can also be applied to mentally fit.\n\nHuman beings change their environment to suit their needs, unlike animals which just adjust to the surroundings in which they are. Due to this change, the way of natural selection in animals in which physically strong and fit is almost the entire criteria for a good mate cannot be applied to humans.\n\nThe natural selection method in animals is based on physical attributes mainly for survival (as is wonderfully said in "Survival of the Fittest") For the world that we have created around us, a human being also has to be mentally fit to survive. In fact this has reached to such an extent that physical attributes mean very less now. Nobody wants a good looking bad really badly behaved mate, at least not for life.\n\nThis is the world we human beings have created and now "Survival of the fittest" has even more promininence as being mentally fit or perfect is much more tougher than being physically  fit or perfect. \n\nNobody is perfect but everyone yearns to reach that perfection.\n\nThe competition for survival has reached a new level, natural or not, and i think one should be pondering about "HOW" to get ahead of the competition? instead of "WHY" is the competition held this way
1167804
One of the dangers of evolution is that it makes *TOO* MUCH SENSE.  It is actually incredibly simple and logical!  It makes so much sense WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND IT, that it's tempting to believe it on logical grounds alone, and forget that a good theory not only has to make sense, but it has to have *evidence* to support it.\n\nBut guess what? The evidence is there too! Tons of evidence.  Fossil evidence, genetic evidence, molecular evidence, comparative anatomy, vestigial and homologous structures, geographic distribution of species, etc. etc., all supporting the same idea.\n\nBut purely with respect to the how simple it is:\n\nNatural selection requires three ingredients:\n1. Variation. (E.g. some individuals within a species are hairier/taller/lighter/whatever than others individuals).\n2. Selection. (Hairier individuals do better and make more babies in one environment, or lighter individuals do better and make more babies in another environment).\n3.  Time.  (As in *gobs* of it, millions, billions of generations.)\n\nThat's it.  People who focus on probabilities, or say the evolution is about randomness or blind "luck" think it's all about #1.  Randomness only comes into play as a source of variation.  There's nothing random about the idea that hairier animals live longer and make more babies in colder environments.\n\nAnd there's nothing in there that says that if some members of a species evolve into a new species, that *all* members must evolve (i.e. that the former species must disappear).  E.g., the hairier individuals may explore colder environments and eventually become a new species, while the former species (less hairy) thrives quite happily in the warmer environment.  \n\nAnd the "half-evolved organ" argument is also silly ... e.g. half-a-wing with crappy feathers *is* useful even if the proto-bird can't yet fly ... if intermediate feathers keep it warm, and intermediate wings let it flap out of danger better (think of a chicken), then that's enough selective advantage that it will live longer and make more babies than its buddies with smaller wings or crappier feathers.  Intermediate stages can invariably be shown to be useful.\n\nThat's it.  It's a *really* simple idea.  Hope it's no longer Greek to you.
499343
Evolution.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
245411
Ok "harini" you are a retard. NEVER ONCE did Darwin use the phrase "survival of the fittest" in his definition of natural selection. It was later scientists who coined that phrase. Maybe you should read Darwin's literature before making ignorant statements.\n\nSorry, to answer your question, monkeys will continue to evolve and adapt to their changing enviromnents, as long as they don't go extinct sometime in the near future.
94823
There's a new quasi-scientific theory being bandied about called "memetics."  Although the idea is still in its infancy, it has some interesting potential.  The idea stems from the notion of evolution from a gene's perspective--that an individual gene has no "concern" for the organism that propagates it; rather, if it happens to flourish it will become abundant.  If, by chance, it should convey an advantage to its host such that its host becomes more prosperous and abundant, then so much the better; but that isn't expressly a requirement.  The notion emerges to help explain things like viruses, and genes that are advantageous in a the heterozygous creature but detrimental to the homozygous creature (like the gene for sickle cell anemia--the disease results from being homozygous--that is, havving two copies--of the gene, while being heterozygous--having one copy--can convey a resistance to malaria).\n\nThat much we know.  But when looking from this reductionist perspective, we find that there are three essential elements to evolution: replication with retention of traits, variation, and selection.  With those three factors combined, any system will necessarily result in an evolutionary pattern.\n\nHere's where the idea of memes come in.  Memes are behaviors or behavioral patterns that can be copied by one person from another.  From the memetics standpoint, this tendency to instinctively copy behaviors is THE defining trait of the human.  As babies, we copy facial expressions and phonemes (phonemes are the building blocks of sound in a given language), we copy grammar, we copy tool making and usage, etc.  Synchronized/choreographed dance is a good example of a behavior unique to humans existing in all cultures and centered around mimicry.  At any rate, these behaviors that we might copy--be they languages, tool, stereotyped motions, religion, philosophy, whatever--are collectively called memes.\n\nWhile there hasn't yet been a rigorously scientific theory developed, there are certain elements that many biologists can agree upon.  Human evolution is dominated by a form of meme-gene co-evolutionary process.  The core idea that reults is this: while a meme might be detrimental to an individual, and hence reduce the chances of an individual progenating and passing genes to a next generation, if can simultaneously be beneficial to a group that propagates that meme.  Hence, it will be evolutionarily favored.\n\nAs an example, let's look at self-sacrifice in a battle.  An individual who sacrifices his life for a "greater good" will reduce his own chances of reproducing.  At first glance, we should regard this as evolutionarily detrimental, and hence, something that should be eliminated by evolution.  But in the broader perspective, a nation or culture that places a premium on courage and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the greater good will thrive in an armed conflict, since the people will work better as a unified and courageous fighting force.  The benefits to the community as a whole are evolutionarily out-weighed by the few losses of those who sacrifice their lives--hence, the community sharing and promoting that meme thrives.  Those who are evolutionarily best suited to adopt, promote, and maintain memes become some of the most prosperous in a society unified by memes.  Things like IQ would correlate well with the ability to adapt memes.  In the long run, the genepool would select towards the ability to acquire and propagate useful memes, or even to innovate new memes.\n\nThe lesson of the last several thousand years has been that those with the best memes win.  Those memes include things like math and science as well as religion.  Becoming religious would carry a small risk of finding yourself in a position to be sacrificed in the name of your God or gods, but it would carry the certain benefit of having the protection of the entire religious community.  During the Da
657830
Yes there is a survival of the fittest among humans too. It's called social stratification. That is, if I understand your question. please write in English next time.
579669
The 'modern' human experiment could be seen as an answer to your question.  We now, for our 'comfort' do things which are certainly to be considered 'adaptive selection of species'.  The way this results in 'natural selection of a population' can be felt and seen and even quantified, if one is sentient and humble enough.  Glad to help!
27731
well, there are two ways that I remember from bio. One is that they learn from other animals/ assimilate other organisms into their own cell structure (this is simple lifeforms)for example, many scientists theorized that the mitochondria comes were actually assimilated organisms.\n\nAnother way is the whole "survival of the fittest" basically, certain members of a species that are able to survive/thrive in an environment would oust the other members, while if the environment changes so that it favors another group, then this group would die out, so that only the species that work best in the environment are left. I think this is a theory that Darwin came up with.
622058
Evolved isn't really the right word...
889208
Its not.\n\nThe word evolved implies evolution, the definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development.\nOr more specifically in biology, change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.\n\nHumans did not however evolve from the apes alive today, we simply share a common ancestor.
357905
The terms macro- & microevolution was not made up by creationists.  Well, creationists have made up the terms but... the story is a bit more complicated.\n\nIn the beginning, it was thought that there were two fundamentally different processes of evolution.  Since the difference between species was seen in a boolean fashion (you can breed together or you can't, no middle ground), it was difficult to see how new barriers could be errected without some kind of Hopeful Monster or some other kind of unusual arrangement.  Hence "Macroevolution", the special process of evolution that led to new species, separate from "microevolution", the evolution seen regularly.\n\nOnly, with more investigation, the problem went away.  The line between species is far more blurry than can breed/can't breed.  Organisms can be 90% compatible, 50% compatible, etc. etc.  We see this with ring species and grades all the time.  With the "barrier" between species gone, there was no need for "macroevolution".\n\nScientists are ever loathe to lose a polysyllabic monstrosity of a word, so over time, so some have shifted the meaning subtely from "the process of evolution that leads to speciation" to "Evolution at or above the species level."  Nonetheless, you will still see both meanings in use.\n\nYou'll also find another meaning in use, if you can call it a meaning.\n\nCreationists have their own "definition" of macroevolution:  Evolution beyond the created kind.  Of course, they can't define "created kind" in any testible fashion, which makes their definition essentially no definition at all, but nevermind that!\n\nOne thing creationists do a lot is quote scientists saying, "There are serious problems with macroevolution" or "Macroevolution just doesn't exist".  Of course, the scientists mean something utterly different from the creationist definition, but the creationists won't tell you that.  No, they just present their definition, then give you some quotes of scientists saying something else entirely, and expect you to believe the lie.\n\nAs far as evidence of macroevolution, it really depends on what meaning you are using.\n\nEvolution beyond the created kind?  Let me know what a created kind is and we'll get back to you.\n\nThe special process of evolution that leads to speciation?  It doesn't exist, so there's no evidence for it and we don't really want any.\n\nEvolution at the species level and beyond?  We've seen it in real time.  There are hundreds of directly observed examples of new species forming.  The first two links below list some of them.  The third link includes a variety of evidence for evolution more broadly than speciation.\n\nSo, there you go.  Three questions answered for the price of one.  Well, for free, the price of none!  Yay!  You just can't beat this deal!
348831
The idea of evolution of ideas fits well in the framework of memetics, the evolutionary model for describing the units of information in the brain (called "memes", as analogous to "genes"): how they spread from one brain to others, how they mutate, and of course, how they evolve in time.\n\nThe answer to your question is yes: there are many examples of evolved ideas, one of the most noticeable, already reported in the original article (see reference) from Richard Dawkins, the biologist who first introduced the concept, is the idea of God.\n\nMemetics provides a convincing explanation for some aspects of cultural evolution, based on a testable mechanism (replication errors and natural selection).\nOn the other hand, as far as I can understand it, invariantology is a fascinating but untestable theory, since every human can build a different, and ultimately arbitrary, classification of invariants.
317337
Yes. Any mutations (new ideas) that occur with data that is being viewed in an evolutionary sense and that survives or persist (such as Islam and Christianity), are examples of evolution.\n\nThis is not biological evolution per se, it just follows the same algorithm.  Some Christians will have a hard time buying this, partly because their religion has in many ways, demonized the word, 'evolution'.  Some just see monkeys when they hear that word, they have a hard time getting beyond that because it would break down big chunks of their belief stucture and who they feel they are inside.
1136665
Evolutionary fitness is a measure of reproductive success no matter how efficient (or whatever) you are. The more healthy, offspring you produce, the more of your genes are passed on to the next generation, and the more evolutionarily fit you are. Of course these offspring have to reproduce as well to validate your fitness. Individuals that do not reproduce have a fitness of zero no matter how efficient (or whatever) they are.
522543
There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution, and none I have seen disputing it at all- There are gaps in the evidence, but there is no evidence directly *against* the theory.  Originally it was thought that evolution happened in a slow, steady, manner-but fossil evidence mounted that disputed that view, and thus the theory was refined, so that now we know it generally occurs more rapidly when there is major climactic change, leaving different environments, creating new ones, killing off of existing species which creates empty niches for new animals to fill.  Most arguments against evolution depend on areas where there is lack of evidence, not on evidence that disputes the theory.  \nThe first evidence was Darwin's observations that birds adapted genetically to different environments, a process that is, in fact, slow and steady.\nThen the geological and physical evidence that the Earth was actually billions, not thousands, of years old meant that there was plenty of time for evolution.\nThen the morphilogical evidence of relatedness.\nThis theory also explained the many vestigial structures found in animals, such as the tiny hipbones in snakes\nIt was well documented and accepted by the early 1900's-THis theory predicted that there would be a close correlation of genetic patterns with morphology, and predicted that there would be vestigial genes in animals.  It also predicted that all forms of life would share certain genes, and that closely related species would have closely related, but slightly different, genes.  All of these predictions were shown to be true.\nEvolution also predicted that structure such as wings would have evolved at some point with a different function, since evolutionary mutations that are beneficial (less than 1 in 100,000) would tend to make small changes, and one could not expect a lizard to bear baby lizards with full-blown wings.  THus, the structures that become wings would be expected to have had some other function, and eventually evolved into wings.  For many structures, such as wings and eyes, these early purposes have been determined.\nRapid evolution, especially under conditions of stress, is seen in bacteria and other one-celled animals.  Because the theory states that it would require thousands of generations to observe evolution in action, only bacteria and other very rapidly dividing organisms can be tested for evolutionary changes that we can actually see.\nThus, the theory effectively explains animal and plant diversity, the predictions that the theory made were shown to be true, the fossil, genetic, and morphological data from the past support the theory, and it has been demonstrated to occur in the only animals that it could be demonstrated in, bacteria.\nFor a theory about how things have occurred over the last few billion years, when we cannot actually "see" it occuring, when it has happened over a span of time far beyond our historical records, this is an overwhelming and nearly indisputable amount of evidence.\n\nThe theory does not predict that animals will become "better" over time, just that any genetic mutation which increase the viability and number of offspring will tend to change the species- Remember, the theory of evolution is only one of biochemistry, genetics, and environmental interactions- It is not a philosophy, religion, or value system- Evolution does not make value judgements, does not plan or think or even care- it is merely a physical process like a rock falling down a hill.
318151
There are different schools of thought on evolution.  Development of one species into a completely different species (macroevolution in a nutshell) is a ridiculous theory, in my opinion.  AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS STILL A THEORY, NOT FACT!  I hate it that people try to pull off this old theory as fact.\nBut I totally believe in gradual adaptations within a species.  That's microevolution (in a nutshell).