Why has evolution allowed us to survive with so many fundamental weaknesses?
919231
its a complex question with a simple answer.. life just easier than you are giving it credit for.. if life were more difficult, then perhaps such evolutionary developments like you are suggesting would be necesary
237532
if the environment changes faster than the organisms ability to adapt to the changes, the species will go extinct. The reason, be it man made, or natural, is irrelevant. The point is, there is a change, and the organism cannot adapt.
1029944
Actually- just because we are at the top of the food chain doesn't mean that we aren't still subject to selection pressures.  It is true that predation is one selection pressure that we no longer have to worry about, but disease is a selection pressure that we cant fully avoid.  \n\nWhile science has made tremendous progress in terms of preventing/curing "old-world" epidemics like polio and smallpox, new viruses and pathogens are constantly emerging through an evolutionary process of their own.... some diseases are such that they're only fatal to certain groups of people (for example, those with compromised immune systems), as well.  So theoretically, if such a disease were to grow out of control, those groups of people would be selected against...   \n\nAlso, culturally we're seeing that certain groups of people are reproducing more frequently and in greater numbers than others, while some populations have a negative birth rate.  If these sort of culturally-based reproduction trends continue, it's logical to assume that humans will look significantly different in the future. \n\nIt is safe to argue that we as a species have broken free of most of the evolutionary constraints that were once upon us- but there are still some factors that limit our evolutionary fitness.
931077
It's well accepted that the larger the gene pool, the better chance a species has of adapting to change and surviving famine, disease and other disaster.\n\nCulturally, we're no different. The larger the variety of options we have, the better our chances for coming out of a disaster well. Cultures and empires last centuries, so it's hard for us to see this happening in our society. But we still need that diversity for our collective well-being in the long run.
285327
Your argument has some assumptions, assertions, and logic that are not sound.\n\nFirst of all, you only multiply probabilities together when they are independent variables - it would be easy to argue that many of the items that you mentioned are interdependent.\n\nAlso, I think you misunderstand what evolution of species is proposing.  Evolution does NOT depend on luck - it is instead an observation that lucky organisms survive and pass on their properties to their descendants.\n\nConsider bacteria - almost all mutations are harmful but a few bacteria have lucky mutations that make them immune to penicillin.  If penicillin is used on bacteria, only these lucky ones survive - and most of their descendants inherit the the same immunity-mutation.  \n\nThe original mutation is luck - the environment then selects and a small set of traits due to beneficial mutations persists.  And THAT is not luck, that is selection.  That's why the process is called "Natural Selection".  \n\nSadly, this is why almost all bacteria were zapped by the early antibiotics, and now (only 60 years later) we have hundreds of resistant strains.
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!
111774
we evolved from one specific species of apes. evolution is a constant, dynamic process, that cen be seen even now as you look around. you have to be intelligent and have common sense and pay attention, and not beleive everything that is written. for proof, just look at the weather forecasters - almost everything they say is wrong, or they just flat out lie. I think they lie - nobody could screw up that much and keep a job.
420382
It's innate and is part of being human.  That is why human being were able to evolve...  We not only wanted to survive but to also better the lives of our progenies.\n\n"More" and "enough" are relative terms.  \n\nLESS is more so give me more!!
237580
Armies, and wars in general, are needed as a natural part of human evolution.  When you look at war from a long-range perspective, it becomes clear that, as destructive as wars are, their very destructiveness has served as the primary force for the evolution of the human race.  By mercilessly elimnating those who were unable to survive in the theater of war, wars resulted in a constant upgrading of both the physiological and intellectual acuity of man.\n\nAlthough many bright people perish in wars, the preponderance of the casualties occur among people with the limited intellectual capacity to understand the mechanics of wars and who are thus unable to avoid becoming casualties.\n\nWho would seriosly dispute the fact that smart people have higher living standards than intellectually less endowed persons do?  War elimnates the intellectually less fit and thus, in the end, raises the average intelligence and the living standards of society as a whole.\n\nThroughout the ages, evolution took advantage of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, war, natural disasters, disease and famine.\n\nIf we succeed in eliminating armies and war, we are also eliminating war in its capacity as a powerful contributor to evolution by keeping the world population in check.  We are now at 6 billion humans, scientific projections of growth predict 10 billion within 50 years...mostly in under developed countries. Humanity will reach the limits of available resources at 9-12 billion..this is not sustainable.\n\nWe can only speculate as to which path evolution will take in reducing the world from 10 to  3 billion.  A battle for resources will favor those with higher levels of intelligence and rationality.  Evolution never receds to irrationality, superstition and stupidity.
413080
Your understanding of the evolutionary process is flawed. Evolution means "change in hereditary features over time".  We do not develop structures in order to adapt to our environment.  Rather, through subtle or obvious genetic variation in offspring, those offspring who are most successful in the current environment will live to maturity to reproduce and pass on their genes.  For example, if the environment of polar bears becomes warmer, so that areas of the land have soil showing, a baby born with a slightly mottled coat might have better luck at camouflage -- better luck at hunting -- stronger chance of breeding and passing on the mottled coat genes.  Over many, many years, there would be a shift away from genes for all-white coats towards more genes for mottled coats.  So -- since watching TV does not affect survival and production of successful offspring, we would not expect one type of eyeball to be better suited than another.
243668
It's a form of natural selection. The strong ones survive, the weak write bad poetry and commit suicide.
1023532
Well, the main reason would be that evolution is a process that take thousands, if not millions, of years to accomplish. Also, because evolution works to allow an organism to compete for a resource better than another organism. At this point, we have no competition so the motivation for evolution is basically zero.\n\n I also think that the main issue with global warming isn't going to be humans being unable to survive the temperatures so much as the environment is going to be destroyed so we'll have less animals and plants to eat.
1103783
We have totally removed natural selection, a key requirement for a being to evolve.  If anything we will become less robust, less strong, less health, and less successful because there is no need for it.    \n\nGeography is also no longer a boundry, so there aren't any more isolated groups evolving independently.   With the spread of people across the word, the average person will look more and more like a mix of everyone else:  eg. most will have medium complexion, most will have brown hair.\n\nHowever, if your scenarion will allow for natural disasters or plagues, the end result is unforseeable.   Those who survive a period of plague will have better immune systems and generally more healthy.   Those who survive a disaster like a world-wide drought or flood will be those with the best survival instincts:  clever, resourceful, excellent social smarts, more fit and more efficient metabolism.
650184
Being afraid is an evolutionary trait to keep you away from things that are generally dangerous or that increase your exposure to danger
369704
Everything needs to evolve to protect its existence due to changes in the enviroment etc...
603237
Its not evolution, that is for sure. The evolutionist idea of natural selection is flawed from the beginning. The idea that we evolved into this superior human who have to deal with feelings of emotion, need large amounts of food and water to survive, require a male and female to reproduce and the list goes on. If natural selection is true then humans would have stopped long before now when we didn't need so much food and water; when we could split ourselves because there was no gender and no one had to think about taking care of a child. A human child is one of the most dependent offspring. Without the care of parents the child would die. This does not seem to fit the the theory of natural selection. Genesis 1:27 explains it good.
1028483
Life is about evolution to higher forms.  Humans destroyed the Neanderthals and we will be eliminated by the robots, after they become smarter than us.