question for evolutionist?

Question

survival of the fittest vs gene mutation what is the most likely model
could it be a combination of the two?
if its survival of the fittest has humanity reached the end of its evoulutionary path we dont need to adapt to our environment as we can make our environments adapt to us? though if gene mutation were the true model would we not exspect to see more evidence occuring before us. does either of these models fully rule out the existance of a higher being/creative force. how accurate was darwins model compared with modern reasearch(either way considering the times in which Darwin put his theory together it is very commendable)

i no alot of people dont like the term evolutionist but its just a word would you prefer i said those who have studied evolution to a high level if you would lets rephrase the question that way

incidently im not a creationist i wouldnt even really consider myself a theist really but i do wonder how much people who talk about evolution on here actually know about it.

Answer 1

I think its a combination of the two. I dont think humanity has reached the end of its evolutionary path because we can't make our environment adapt to us. I believe that no matter how powerful we get, there will always be things out of our control. We have evidence of gene mutation, one example is a antibiotic-resistant virus.

Neither model fully rules out the existance of a higher being or a creative force. I also think Darwin's model was fairly accurate considering the time in which he put it together.

I hope I answered all your questions.

Answer 2

That's not one question, it's several.

Survival of the fittest is the process that determines which gene mutations survive and reproduce--it isn't an either-or proposition.

Human evolution is determined not just by who's most likely to survive but also by who's most likely to reproduce. Unfortunately, that means that more and more humans will be born to individuals too stupid to use birth control properly or too dogmatic to use it at all. If we had a situation where people faced daily danger--such as a plague, or a nuclear holocaust--then humans might face survival of the fittest again.

Evolution does not rule out the involvement of a higher being/creative force.

Science is often honed over the years by new discoveries. Pretty much everything that's happened since Darwin has backed up his theories, though some of the specifics may have changed. One of the big questions that people are now debating is gradual change vs punctuated equilibrium.

Answer 3

Gene mutation happens randomly as well as due to environmental factors all the time. The accumulation and benefit/detriment of such mutations depends on many things that are under our control, as well as those natural forces which we cannot control.

Human beings appear to no longer follow the rules of natural selection (survival of the fittest) in the terms that just about anyone is allowed to mate and produce offspring. Medical technology, population overgrowth, and social standards have made survival of the fittest pretty irrelevant for passing on genes at this time, since single genes do not often directly influence life and death..

However, we as humans cannot predict which genes will end up supporting survival of the species in the long term (or possible extinction). The time line needed to observe these patterns in human society is beyond the scope of many generations.

The science of mutation and evolution has nothing to do with god or existence of a "higher being/creative force".

Answer 4

First, you seem to equate in the middle of your question "evolutionist" with "atheist", which is simply false.

Secondly, gene mutation and "survival of the fittest" as you put it are not competing theories. Basically, what happens, is that beings unable to exist in a certain environment will not survive there. Offspring, whch are able to live there necessarily have properties that allow this. These beings will then reproduce and pass on the adaptive trait.

As far as reaching the end of the necessity of evolution for humans, I don't think we're there yet. We can alter our environment, but we are doing so in an uncontrolled fashion. We may soon need to evolve to compensate for our current actions.

Answer 5

I'm impressed actually. Most Theists don't know the difference between Abiogenesis and the Big Bang but you actually know what a gene is.

It is, in fact, both. Simply put; mutations make new genes and Natural Selection sorts 'em out.

Also, don't think of Evolution as a "The Path" with and end. Evolution is a tree, not a ladder. It branches out in various directions, and those branches then branch out, and so on.

As for whether or not God might be involved, well, technically the Bible doesn't say Adam and Eve weren't 3 ft tall and hairy. Of all known Science, Evolution is actully the least of the Bible's problems.

Answer 6

They're not exclusive - most biologists dislike the phrase 'survival of the fittest' and I don't believe its one Darwin used himself much.

Gene mutation is part of it - selection is the other. MUTATION AND DEATH.

How accurate was it? Well let's explain (once again) that a theory as in 'evolution is just a theory' means in science - a model which has been used, confirmed by experimental data - and NEVER proved wrong. Do you see? Think how often creationists have tried to find a fault with it in the last 130 years or so - with zero success. They're failure to invalidate it tells us something I would say.

I'd love to explain it but if you use the word evolutionists as if its a belief system I fear you're beyond hope.

Answer 7

I think that the two go together. Say a baby seal is born with a genetic mutation that has caused it to have slightly larger flippers. That seal can swim faster, and he gets more fish. His chances of survival are better than those of the other seals, albeit very slightly. This is a postivie adaptation, and he survives to pass this on to some of his offspring.

The mutation happens first. If it increases the chance of suvival, it's good. If it decreases it, it's not good. That's where survival of the fittest comes in.

Or I could be completely wrong...it's been a while since I read Darwin.

Answer 8

Survival of the fittest and gene mutation do not exclude one another. It's just more likely that someone with a useful adaptation such as resistance to a disease will survive to pass on that particular gene mutation.

I don't think there's any reason to conclude that we're at the end of our evolutionary path.

No evidence that I know of rules out the existence of a god. No evidence that I know of supports the existence of a god.

Answer 9

Since we don't fully understand the base causes of gene mutation a definitive answer cannot be stated at this time. It is known that environmental factors are a contributer to most mutations and take place over great periods of time, so we'll just have to wait and see. Personally, I hope science provides a means for me to live to see.

Answer 10

The 'vs' in your question implies a dichotomy - a mutually exclusive choice of two options. However survival of the fittest and gene mutuation are far from exclusive.

Your next question is have we reached the end of our evolutionary path? This implies so many things... Primarily it suggests that we are able to stop evolving! This is beyond our control. So, no, we're not at the end of our evolutionary path... The end of any species' evolutionary path is extinction. Until it reaches that point it contines to evolve.

Your next question is about seeing evidence before us. I assume you mean seeing it happen on a day by day basis, in which case the answer is no. We would not expect to see it. As I pointed out, evolution is generally quite slow, taking many, many generations. However, you can see this in species with shorter life cycles - such as viruses. Their evolution is quite clear.

Now, to avoid my assumption - you can see evolution of species with longer life cycles by looking at the evidence around us - mainly found by archaeologists and the like. This evidence is of course quite sparse, but does help build up the picture.

Does this rule out the existence of a god? No. Of course not. But it doesn't support one, either. The reason evolutionary theory is often argued about in religious contexts is that it does disagree with what the bible (and probably other religious texts - however I am not sufficiently familiar with them to comment) says.

Your last question about accuracy I cannot answer as it's beyond my knowledge. However I can say that although Darwin created the initial theory, if he were alive today he would have to do some serious studying to catch up with the modern version - theories develop as they are tested.