Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

ugh... while 'suvival of the fittest' is a rather brutal reality, the industrial revolution has made it a little too easy for the unfit to survive. Now science has to compete for space in our school books with crackpot superstitions, and our nation's leader 'believes' the earth is 6,000 years old... that's progress folks.

proud to be an american (pukes)

Actually the industrial revolution, technology in general and other changes in society have changed the functional definition of "fittest". The "fittest" is the one who can function the best under the circumstances. Today, that functionality has little to do with physical fitness. Things like education, business and financial skills do a lot more to insure comfort, survival and to attract a mate than ones physical strength, speed or agility. For the most part we don't hunt food or fight over it but rather compete for other resources like money. The money gets you food, shelter, medical care and even goes a long way in attracting a mate.

 

[Thalassamania]

Actually the industrial revolution, technology in general and other changes in society have changed the functional definition of "fittest". The "fittest" is the one who can function the best under the circumstances.

No, Herbert Spenser came up with the phrase after reading Darwin's Origin of Species and introduced it in his Principles of Biology where he said, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life."

Today it is a defined biological term that relates to the increase of gene frequency in a population.

Fitness [absolute fitness]

1. Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.
2. Measure of potential natural selection:
   1. The effect of natural selection is usually considered algebraically in terms of effects on fitness.
   2. If a given genotype has a tendency to increase in number given a certain degree of natural selection, they have an absolute fitness in excess of 1; if a genotype tends to decrease in number then they have an absolute fitness of less than 1.
3. Prediction of next generation contribution:
   1. Multiplication of absolute genotype prevalence by absolute fitness, per generation, gives a predicted new absolute prevalence.
   2. Thus, if there are five individuals displaying an absolute fitness of 1.4, then after one generation we would predict that here would be 7 such individuals

Average fitness

1. The mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.
2. A not growing, not shrinking population has an average fitness of 1.0.

Relative fitness

1. The potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.
2. In a population which is neither increasing nor decreasing overall in number, a genotype with a relative fitness of less than one would (on average) be decreasing in frequency while a genotype with a relative fitness of greater than one would, on average, be increasing in frequency.

 

[MikeFerrara]

okiedokie but the point I was trying to make in the context you presented (which I trust to be technically correct) is that the specific characteristics that determine fitness (the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.) have changed over time.

 

[Thalassamania]

okiedokie but the point I was trying to make in the context you presented (which I trust to be technically correct) is that the specific characteristics that determine fitness (the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.) have changed over time.

Perhaps, I was just trying to deal with the common "bloody tooth and fang" misunderstanding that many folks have. Natural selection rewards the lover, not the fighter.<G>

 

[H2Andy]

Actually the industrial revolution, technology in general and other changes in society have changed the functional definition of "fittest". The "fittest" is the one who can function the best under the circumstances.

Darwing defined "fittest" as "best able to adapt"

by extrapolation, "fittest" means "best able to change with changing conditions"

 

[MikeFerrara]

Darwing defined "fittest" as "best able to adapt"

by extrapolation, "fittest" means "best able to change with changing conditions"

Thal already corrected me and he did it better than you so...there.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Perhaps, I was just trying to deal with the common "bloody tooth and fang" misunderstanding that many folks have. Natural selection rewards the lover, not the fighter.<G>

As I recall from my younger days being a lover got me into a fair number of fights. LOL

 

[H2Andy]

well...

 

[Soggy]

As I recall from my younger days being a lover got me into a fair number of fights. LOL

Did some people call you the space cowboy, Maurice?

 

[MikeFerrara]

Did some people call you the space cowboy, Maurice?

No, but I remember being called a few other names.