Who is fit Those who evolve?The survival of the fitest Evolutionist ;they seem to all drop dead? It cant be?
491745
"Survival of the fittest" is indeed a misleading formulation. There is no absolute measurement for fitness - what makes you more likely to survive today might hinder you tomorrow and vice versa. So it is not like everything is striving upwards that previously determined fitness slope. Therefore many of the interpretations of Darwinism from early last century where wrong. You can't derive rules from evolution like "society should weed out weak indivudals" or stuff like that. \n\nIt follows that the only thing that really matters in terms of evolution is to survive, or more precisely, to exist. Personally I go as far as to say that "reproduce as much as possible" is not the only strategy. I consider stones as a special case of evolution - they manage to survive for a very long time, too. I see evolution as just "the likely thing will happen".\n\nAs for dropping dead: it is not the individual that evolution operates on. It is the population, ie the gene that evokes a specific behaviour. Death can also be predetermined by evolution, because it might be benefitial for the population.\n\nEdit: in reply to your additional comment, thanks, and I am not saying that death is necessarily always a good idea. Humans live quite long, probably also because they are costly to manufacture. Insects don't live very long, but are also very successful. We humans are free to set our own goals for life, and if it is to live long and well, so be it. The ones who figure out how to live longer will live longer ;-)
990517
12 March 2002\n\nPOINTS OF ORIGINS: Variety is the Spice of Life\nby Dr. Glenn Jackson\n\nAmong modern environmentalists the term "species diversity" is a real keyword. Having lots of different species is considered good for the environment. But having all these species makes it hard to classify them all. When you start to talk about all of the extinct species too -- well, it gets pretty crowded. Most evolutionists are fond of pointing out that 95% (some even say 99%) of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct. Let me suggest a thought that may never have occurred to you before. Maybe most of these were just species that didn't make it to survive much beyond the year of Noah's Flood. Maybe all these "weird" prehistoric life forms only look weird to us because we're just not used to them anymore. There is mounting evidence that the ancient world had many more species -- but all living at the same time! -- not all living in vastly different times like the Paleozoic and Jurassic, etc. One entomologist (insect-studier) from Univ of Kansas says, "I never expected to find this staggering array of diversity. It blew me away." Dr. Engel is an expert on bees (Science News, 2/10/01, p87). A newer DNA study has found that crabs "must have evolved at least five different times." (Science News, 3/2/02) Now it's impossible enough to believe that crabs evolved even once -- let alone five times! Bat DNA seems to indicate that echo-location must have "evolved" in bats at least two times -- maybe three. This conclusion even has the evolutionists going batty! I'm serious. This has been driving them nuts. How could sonar have evolved twice? It's so far-fetched to believe that it could have even evolved once! To make matters worse, fossil species are now so many, that the names are getting all confused (Knoxville-News Sentinel, 2/4/02, pE14). I believe that the richness of the Earth's many species of living things today -- is nowhere near what it was before the Great Flood. That would explain why we see fossils of all these "weird" creatures trapped in the rocks left by the debris from the Flood. With all those extra life forms, there were plenty for evolutionists to choose from, while they were looking for all of their "missing links." Well, since they have started to double-check on all of those links, by using DNA, they have found that their best examples really weren't links at all -- but totally separate created kinds, just like the Genesis account predicts. If the scientists would only begin to do their investigations based on the assumption that creation is true and not evolution -- I'd bet that they'd reach their conclusions a lot faster, and things wouldn't be so confusing but would all begin to make perfect sense. Well, "thinking themselves wise they became fools." You keep thinking. \n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
980858
Interesting questions. Since technology seems to be evolving alongside of us, I tend to suspect out bodies will adapt to deal with this. As most technology appears to be making our lives easier, or lasier (which will be more critical as I explain my theory), there is no doubt in my mind we will loose alot of our mobility. Since there is a large push towards working at home and automating everything, I think it is potentially possible we may loose the function of our legs and arms and the moving parts of out bodies. Having said that, it will be interesting to see how we will feed ourselves and reproduce. I suspect the theory discussed in the story, "The Time Machine", is not to far from the truth. It could be possible that we evolve into two different types of humans, similar to termites. We will have the workers; those that will grow our food and carry out the pysical tasks, The general populous which will be home bound and in control of mental actvities. Whether this happens in the next 1000 years seems unlikely since evolution takes much longer than this. But in reflection, considering the environmental change the globe is going through, other changes in the human form will need to be taken into consideration. Could it be possible that humanity will not evolve in the next 1000 years, but simply die out and a new species takes its place? This seems more likely since it has happened to many species throughtout the earths history.
112917
Nice effort and beneficial.\nThey want to trace back the details of human generations which are vague.\nWell, they "search" for Adam, right?\nThey must believe in creationism rather than evolution.\n\nHopefully people will realise that we humans are all the same. We came from the same root. No more racist solicitation.\nThe theory of evolution is focused mostly on physiques. They do not care to think that men have minds and spirit.\nIt is clearly wrong to define us physically just like the animals. We are better than animals. \nMoreover, we are the best creations. \n\nI do not really get the picture with the female ancestor to date earlier than the common male ancestor. Could you explain to me about that?\n\nIt is weird for woman and man to live not in the same time. How could they reproduce?\n\nMaybe I will come back later. By the way, I think "boffin" means buffoons.\n\n\n\nThank you Kurdiatcha for explaining to me.\nI was not expecting you but the questioner herself but thank you.\n\nI would like to edit some more but have no time.\nHere's a little correction:\n\nWhat I meant by define us physically just like the animals is to take ONLY physique into acount.\n\nThe brain differs from the mind. Animals have brains but not minds. They have life but not soul.\n\nBrain is physique. Mind is defined as the ability to learn and understand things by self, not gifted.\nOf course, we need the help of God to understand about something.\nMind is also the sign of rationality of humans.\n\nI will continue later.\n\n\n\nSorry for keeping you waiting so long, Nelly. I had to take time to make a structure of my next explainations which are:\nThis is going to be quite a LONG lecture.\n\n\nHuman = (Physique) (Mind) (Life) (Soul)\nAnimal = (Physique) (Life)\n\nPhysique = Physique?\nIt is most probably. If to follow the law of balance; equation and relation, Human seems to have more advantages such as Mind and Soul, therefore their Physique must be less advantageous than that of Animal.\n\nLife = Life\n\nSoul = Mind (Feelings) (Life)\nMind = Soul (Life) (Physique)\nFeelings = (Physique) (Soul)\nMind ≠ Brain\nBrain = Mind (Physique) (Life) = Brain\nIn this context, Mind means the controller. Brain of Human and Brain of Animal are similar but not the same.\n\nMind = Soul\nMind + Soul (Animal) = Human\nMind and Soul are similar yet they are not one. Plus, they are parallel. Physique capsulizes Brain where in the Brain lies Mind. Life capsulizes Soul. The parallelism of both must be broken and should be met in order to achieve the same goal; finding God. \nOnce they have combined, the journey of finding God will be clearer.\n\nPhysique (Mind) + Life (Soul) = Human\nSoul + Mind ≠ Human\nPhysique + Life ≠ Human\n\nTherefore, Physique and Life make up Animal’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life and Life enlivens Physique. It is mutual symbiosis.\n\nPhysique, Mind, Life and Soul make up Human’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life, Soul and Mind, Life and Soul enlivens Physique, Mind controls Physique and Life, so does Soul. Soul controls Mind but Mind decides initially.\n\nConsider Human like a box (Physique) powered by Life externally. Inside the box, there is a ball of Soul and Mind; Mind takes up only the core while Soul is the ball inside out. With the ball, the box is generated internally.\n\nThe three parts: Physique, Life and Soul must be available in order for a Human to love but irrationally minded. Therefore, Mind is the only part of rationality. It is the only part of intelligence.\n\n\nThe above equations show the difference between Human and Animal. I know it is quizzical to you, so it is to me.\nThe sign with the small "l" is actually a small number 1, indicates Human.\n\nWell, if we to trace the generations of human, we must primarily try to understand human. If you do not understand anything, tell me. I will try to make you understand the equation. Even I do n
674302
I don't believe in evolution, just try and picture your ancesters being fish, or any thing else crawling up out of the sea!
642854
Survival of the fitest
653816
Evolution is a theory.
362839
Darwin's theory does hold true. First of all let me state that Darwin NEVER said that man evolved from apes. He stated that in order for a species to survive it would have to change. Survival of the fitest. If species weren't able to adapt to changes then the species would fail.
1107191
make more ppl until we'll be at the peak of evolution... then we all die... simple! gimme another one!
765632
There will be some ignorant evolutionists here that will give you crap answers about this true statement, keep it up brother. \n\nCreationist 10 - 0 Evolutionists
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
291260
Adaptation? Evolution?
496714
When will that be?\nHow many generations can you go back in your history - who has remained and what did they leave behind for you?\nYour Darwin will not last until eternity as well. His theories are just contemporary thoughts for people to m.bate over who, just like the religious mob, have no logical explanations for our existence.
1057563
Evolutionism isn't like that.  You don't have to try to get people to subscribe to it. Evolution doesn't require worship like "God" does.  Evolution will continue to exist even if noone belived in it, "God" would not.
827918
The ceasing of life. What is it like? I dunno, I've never tried it. (Added - Looking at these answers, I am amazed how many living people have! Unless those of you who've decided that you know are zombies, or something.)
883860
I have been studying Science for the last 40 years and as for the comments made above by my colleague Kuraimizu, I like to point out that in six paragraphs and several hundred words, he has managed to miss the truth completely. What he says is not worthy of someone who has studied science for six months. So, safely ignoring his noises, I should point out that evolution is not a hotly debated subject among scientists – it’s accepted as fact to the point where it really needs no support. Evolutionary biologists and other researchers that investigate evolution do form a community but there is no single website where we all gather to boost each other up. \n\nThere are hundreds of sites that discuss evolution, most are university or college sites that serve their students, a few seek to educate the public, and some are bogus.  If I were looking for honest information, I would avoid blogs and discussion forums and stick to the .edu and .org websites that state their intention without trying to be subversive.  The following short list contains a few sites that are representative:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\nhttp://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html\nhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/\nhttp://explore-evolution.unl.edu/
724158
Er... the theory of evoltion?  It's just a theory though.  Lots of loop holes.  :)