[Phat Bastard]

Chuckit brings up a good point: evolution, in itself, does not mean an organism becomes more complex, "refined", smarter, stronger, whatever...it is conceivable that the survival of the fittest is won by an organism that is not any more complex than the organisms that failed--the organism that survives is the one that is was best suited (that is, its ability to reproduce) to survive in its particular environment.

Practically speaking, the stronger/smarter/quicker/etc. organism will be better able to evade predators, find food, etc etc than its competition, and therefore it is the best suited to surivive in a particular environment. But Darwin's theory does not postulate anything about organisms "getting better" or becoming "more refined", just that they are the MOST SUITED for a particular environment.

Bacterial organisms exist in such diversity and numerical abundance while being less complex than humans precisely because they are the BEST SUITED for the environments they inhabit (your gut, swamps, dirt, etc, etc). While mammals are supposedly more complex than bacteria, can you imagine a monkey living at the bottom of a pond producing more offspring than the billions and billions of bacteria living in the same pond?

Get it? I understand that there is a different between a reason for evolution and the purpose of evolution...I just want to point out that evolution is PURPOSELESS in itself. Evolution is only a consequence of the survival of the fittest and not necessarily the MORE COMPLEX organism.

[SVass]

When a volcano erupts or a comet strikes, the environment changes. Some individuals of a species survive and some do not. Thus, evolution has allowed the "survival of the fittest" who may happen to be the luckiest. When humans cut down a forest or create more carbon dioxide, some species lose their niche and die. Practically speaking, it is probability/luck and not strength, intelligence, or agility that leads to survival. I am amazed that a G-- can design a final human being but not a process that inevitably leads to one. Why is the province of religion! sam

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by freudling

Q: How do things evolve?
A: Through the mechanisms of Darwinian Evolution (Environmental stress, chance mutations, etc.)
Q: Why do organisms evolve?
A: It is a consequence of survival of the fittest.
Q: Why do organisms want to survive? Compete against their competitors?
A: Because they want to survive.
Q: Why do they want to survive?
A: It is programmed in their DNA.
Q: Why is it programmed in their DNA?
A: ?????

The answer to the last question would be because only the organisms that want to survive survive, which brings us to circular logic. Perhaps Your answer is better.

[sminch]

Practically speaking, it is probability/luck and not strength, intelligence, or agility that leads to survival.

absolutely true - you could be the fastest, strongest, bestest thing in the world but if you get hit by lightning before you have loads of offspring that won't help at all. thing is, though, that populations and time frames are both big enough to ensure this isn't too great an issue.

sminch

[freudling]

Luck? So if we enter a nuclear war and blow up the planet, is it luck that a few humans survived on a space station?

Smarter, quicker, better: these were mearly superlatives to address how organisms can evolve. But intelligence can hardly be dismissed as having nothing to do with evolution and Darwin's theory. Smaller bodies, more complex brains: favored over large, nutrient sucking bodies and less refined minds. Look at how we faired 100,000 years ago in the wild. We are king of the planet! Without our minds we are nothing.

[freudling]

bump