Aren't they interferring with the evolution of mankind by tampering with the mortality of the sick and dying? Isn't medicine keeping the weakest of mankind from dying and thus preventing the species from evolving further by means of those who can adapt.
2007-03-01 03:56:03 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
mustafa: that might make them the smartest, but not necessarily the fittest. Watch Survivor. The smartest are not necessarily the ones who come out on top. Usually the winner is one of the fittest.
2007-03-01 04:09:24 · update #1
Excellent question, it's a fact. I believe we should enforce it!
2007-03-01 04:04:41 · answer #1 · answered by jacquie 6 · 0⤊ 6⤋
Hmm...
If "survival of the fittest" means that the lion gets the slowest antelope, that doesn't mean the antelope shouldn't run when the lion comes.
Similarly, if you are aware that sickness kills the weaker individuals, that doesn't decrease the incentive for an individual to seek medical attention when sick ... it *increases* it.
In other words, an individual acting to enhance their own survival (e.g., by running when the lion comes, or by seeking medical attention) isn't just *consistent* with the theory of evolution, it is a *key part* of that theory.
"Survival of the fittest" just means that the ones are are most successful at acting in their own self interest (or those of their kin) will tend to propagate their genes more.
Going to the doctor is absolutely consistent with "survival of the fittest" ... the individual is seeking to survive.
Your question would be more interesting addressed to the doctor, not the person seeking help.
And in that case there are two answers. The first is that a doctor seeking to help people is acting in the interest of his or her "kin" (fellow humans) ... i.e. species that have the intinct to help each other tend to survive longer *as a species.* The second answer is that humans have evolved beyond basic animal instincts. We help each other because we are Human (in the moral sense), not because we are evolving (in the biological sense) ... and certainly not because there is some moral reason why we "should" be evolving.
And *please* don't take lessons on evolution from Survivor. The theory of evolution in biology is about slow evolution of populations across generations ... not the struggle of individual humans over the course of a TV season (a few weeks). The theory of evolution in biology involves (a) random variation; (b) *inheritance*; and (c) selection by *nature* (natural selection) of advantageous genes ... Survivor (a) does not involve random variation ... the contestants are deliberately pre-selected to make an interesting TV show; (b) does not involve inheritance; and (c) involves selection by *humans* (artificial selection) using the artificial rules of a human-invented game.
2007-03-01 04:39:06 · answer #2 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fittest also means smartest, if you were not mentally fit enough to go to the doctor you should die. Evolution isn't just physical, it is also of the mind and at this point in our evolution, that is the most important thing. By your logic humans should not exist at all, because we are not fit, most prdatory animals can kill use if we did not have things that we used our minds to invent and protect us. Just think about it. I hope that answers your question, add details if you have and additional information. Good question, it will no doubt get a star or two.
2007-03-01 04:08:14 · answer #3 · answered by n0tsan3 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow...your basis for determining what "fit" means comes from survivor....brilliant....
Humans are fit because they are the smartest. It's why we're at the top of the food chain. We're not the biggest or the strongest animal by any means. But we are the smartest. Smart people goto the doctor and get vaccines. Dumb people pray. Wonder which one the virus is going to kill. Survival of the fittest.
2007-03-01 04:20:26 · answer #4 · answered by Franklin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean interfering? If you want to be fit, and therefore survive, go to the doctor. If you want to be weak and die off, then don't go. Medicine keeping the weak alive does not interfere with evolution, in fact nothing can interfere with or prevent evolution because evolution can not so far be predicted. Besides, virus' evolve faster than humans, so our medicine will never keep up, our tool of medicine is a manifestation of the evolution of humans to survive.
2007-03-01 04:10:20 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first thing that would evolve would be a strong desire to survive and to reproduce. This is an obvious trait that would be present almost immediately in organisms. So our genetics contain strong instincts to want to live. As far as modern medicine and evolutionary thought, you are sort of talking about Eugenics. But that opens up a new can of worms and actually starts to add morality to evolution, which really doesn't make it evolution anymore. But since doctors are part of our environment, why wouldn't that be part of "best suited to your environment".
2007-03-01 04:24:33 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question. I like the general direction you're going with it. HOWEVER.....
Going to the doctor to have him remedy one's health is natural. It sounds strange but hear me out....
As humans we have lost many animal traits found in nature. We don't have sharp claws, Our teeth can hardly tear through things. We're slower and don't have the strength to kill large game. The reason for this is that while other animals were evolving to strengthen those traits, we evolved to be smarter and, of course, to be able to keep records (which is, in my opinion, what makes us human). You and I are able to learn from anyone around the world who lived at any time. Animals have no such ability. They learn from their parents and their colony (or whatever) but that's it.
So, what's my point? It would be evolutionaraly UNfair to pit a human against a tiger without providing the human with a gun or other weapon. The tiger's superior strength and speed are the result of its evolution, and the weapon is the fruit of human evolution (since we wen't the 'brain route' and not the 'muscle route').
The ability of a human to develop and use a weapon for hunting or survival is the same as us passing knowledge and research down to develop medical techniques. Doctors (more specifically, medical methods) are what our evolution has produced over time instead of robust immune systems (local to a region, of course)
So I don't see it as 'cheating' for anyone to use the doctor.
2007-03-01 04:16:16 · answer #7 · answered by Brett B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there's a misunderstanding what "fittest" is. It means reproductive fitness, and does not imply a "weak" individual. In other words, a species better able to reproduce in a changing environment will be the most likely to have offspring, making them "fitter" than those who aren't as capable.
2007-03-01 04:15:51 · answer #8 · answered by Niotulove 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you commence with an unfounded statement then use it to guage a hypothesis - no longer even a idea - to the medical idea of evolution. Abiogenesis isn't evolution. in case you imagine identity is technology then you lack a effortless expertise of technology and the way it truly works. not one of the drivel you spewed has some thing to do with the medical idea of evolution. identity is creationism in a prettier gown. i do not comprehend any non Christians in u.s. that help the failed idea of smart layout. If their is a dressmaker of this Universe, Earth, and the life on it then it turned right into a malicious, advise lively s.o.b. identity isn't nor will it ever upward push to the point of technology.
2016-12-05 02:41:18 · answer #9 · answered by lesure 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'The fittest' surely would mean 'those who go to the doctor in time'...
2007-03-01 04:05:27 · answer #10 · answered by mustafa 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not at all - evolutionists should be encouraging everyone else not to visit their doctors.
2007-03-01 04:04:26 · answer #11 · answered by Iridflare 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋