survival of the fittest, does that imply...
@flowerchilde (12529)
United States
June 11, 2012 9:51am CST
Hi! I found myself thinking, and wondering if the whole survival of the fittest theory (when it comes to origins and what life is) doesn't imply that all generations of persons previous than one's own generation were less intelligent, etc..? And if so where does this leave one? (As to attitude and wisdom)
- Do you think mankind becomes smarter? or do they build upon what was discovered and learned before them?
2 people like this
15 responses
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
11 Jun 12
Survival depends on more than intelligence, don't you think? Physical ability, common sense, wisdom etc.
Smarter? We certainly know MORE about things than say 100 yrs. ago. Are we using it to better survive?
Here's one example why I think not.
100 years ago we did not know about nuclear power. What was the FIRST thing we used it for? Heck, the rush to 'discover' it was wrapped up in wanting more POWER, and not to run our appliances.
Does that mean I am anti nuclear power, no. Am I against us using it in Japan? yes, cause now there is no turning back. And we're looking at being one of the next targets of such power.
Mankind has a fallen sin nature no matter what the philosophers and atheists say. Just take a real good look at history, we keep doing the same things for the same reasons, just with bigger badder sticks.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
12 Jun 12
"Actually we DID know about nuclear power 100 years ago we knew about it 200 years ago.2
What utter twaddle.
It was the Brit Rutherford that discovered nuclear energy theoretically and the French physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie who demonstrated it practically in 1939
It was not known of before the 20 century
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
13 Jun 12
Well thank you for the info. Why the need to get mean and nasty? I simply asked for some info.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
11 Jun 12
If you're speaking about it in an evolutionary context, "survival of the fittest" doesn't necessarily deal with only the fit/strongest surviving. The weak/unfit does not necessarily die out.
It's more about adaptability. Like, for instance, if you had a huge herd of elk and a really harsh winter hit, the elk with longer fur have a better chance for survival. They have longer fur through random gene changes, and they're more likely to survive and pass on that gene. Over time, these types of things come to the forefront based on the environment -- food, weather, etc.
It's not a generational thing per se. It's something that takes place over many generations. With the elk example, it's always going to be the elk with the longest fur surviving in larger numbers, and thus those are the ones breeding. The gene pool is eventually going to be full of long-fur elk, and then those with even longer and thicker still have a better shot.
With humans, it doesn't matter. We can buy a coat. And stupid people can still breed. 
I'm sure we will continue to become more intelligent, but I'm not sure how much more intelligent we are now than a previous generation or few.
But I do agree that there's plenty of opportunity to pass wisdom along now. We have mass writers and TV and internet and such.
I'm sure we will continue to become more intelligent, but I'm not sure how much more intelligent we are now than a previous generation or few.
But I do agree that there's plenty of opportunity to pass wisdom along now. We have mass writers and TV and internet and such.1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
11 Jun 12
I find these things very fascinating and love to always learn more and unlearn what's not actuality...
Your post was a very good post except one very tiny thing that's not accurate.. "They have longer fur through random gene changes" Random gene changes are mutations and they're always to the negative.. A better example would be, say, drought, the trees with the ability to grow deeper roots will survive, and the ability is in the genes.. another example would be the forming of different races of humans, they didn't evolve from separate sources or develop new characteristics.. but it's the result of the separation of traits already there.. So many folks cannot grasp this, though of course I'm quite sure you do quite easily! It's also like a bacteria which is often presented as having developed new resistance to antibiotic.. in a sense it's sort of true but a bit misleading as what actually happens is the antibiotic wipes out the nonresistant, and the resistant multiply.. It almost appears as though they developed or evolved a new trait but the trait was actually present all the time.. I could provide other examples like the peppered moth (used by some to support the theory/hypothesis of (macro, which has to do with origins of one kind of animal becoming another kind) evolution.. where brown moths near trees with white lichen were picked off by predators, but elsewhere, where the trees remained brown it was the white moths which were picked off.. scientists all aflutter feel this proves the evolution as to origins rather than merely micro evolution, which is natural selection.. and known of long before Mr Darwin and those after him who actually went much farther than he did..
Random gene changes are mutations and they're always to the negative.. A better example would be, say, drought, the trees with the ability to grow deeper roots will survive, and the ability is in the genes.. another example would be the forming of different races of humans, they didn't evolve from separate sources or develop new characteristics.. but it's the result of the separation of traits already there.. So many folks cannot grasp this, though of course I'm quite sure you do quite easily! It's also like a bacteria which is often presented as having developed new resistance to antibiotic.. in a sense it's sort of true but a bit misleading as what actually happens is the antibiotic wipes out the nonresistant, and the resistant multiply.. It almost appears as though they developed or evolved a new trait but the trait was actually present all the time.. I could provide other examples like the peppered moth (used by some to support the theory/hypothesis of (macro, which has to do with origins of one kind of animal becoming another kind) evolution.. where brown moths near trees with white lichen were picked off by predators, but elsewhere, where the trees remained brown it was the white moths which were picked off.. scientists all aflutter feel this proves the evolution as to origins rather than merely micro evolution, which is natural selection.. and known of long before Mr Darwin and those after him who actually went much farther than he did..@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
11 Jun 12
http://www.discovery.org/a/17491
Great article on 'junk' DNA.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/john-sanford-mutations-produced-no-meaningful-crop-improvement/
Great article on mutations not improving crops.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/
if you are interested in reading the entire paper Uncommon Descent here is the link:
http://issuu.com/nitai/docs/mystery_of_genome
Article on 'genetic entropy'. Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say dare) to question the Primary Axiom.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
12 Jun 12
Well, for a genetic trait to flourish it must provide a survival and/or breeding advantage to either the individual concerned or that individuals close genetic kin.
Now it might be argued that intelligence up to a certain degree does exactly that, let us call this practical reasoning, but I do not think there is evidence to suggest the same be true of intelligence beyond that
Secondly, it is not clear that intelligence is inherited genetically
Thirdly, man has removed himself from evolutionary pressure, thus effectively ending evolution for himself (Or at least severally curtailing it)
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@drannhh (15219)
• United States
16 Jun 12
We live in societies that are much more technologically advanced than when those theories were formulated, so maybe people who have access to the technology are the ones who survive. But we have to rethink what it means to survive. Or, for that matter, what it means to be smart.
1 person likes this
@pahak627 (5347)
• Philippines
12 Jun 12
In our time, I guess survival of the fittest theory refers to the competition in our daily lives. For example, in applying for a certain position, the one who is fit for the position will survive, hence, he gets the position. Am not good at analogy or whatever, but this is what I think about this theory. I agree that this doesn't imply that previous generation is less intelligent that one's generation. Lack of knowledge of the previous generation is not synonimous to lesser intelligence.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (190011)
• Boise, Idaho
11 Jun 12
I think some are smarter than others genetic wise. And we do learn and build upon what was discovered and learned before them. Life in the 30's was alot more complex than it is now days. We have so many conveniences now and access to the world that we can't help but be smarter.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
11 Jun 12
Technology has advanced and as a result, man no longer needs to use much brain power to solve problems. Machines are doing it for us. In the past, a child would have to solve a mathematical problem in his head. Now he does it on a calculator. I think your second point of building upon past discoveries is correct.
@wolveren (1586)
• Cebu, Philippines
11 Jun 12
Yes the theory still stands to this day. But is twisted a little. You see in all of mankind's existence, he has achieved what no specie on this earth has ever done. Being the most dominant specie. But the smartest are not among us. They are those who are on top and control society and government. Living the rest of us at there disposal. But here's where it's twisted, the dumb ones are not wiped out. With man's evolution in intelligence he has created ways to make human life a convenience, so the rest of us leave it to the scientists, the business men and the governing body to do everything for us. So the dumb ones still survive by the millions, while the smarter ones hold us by the balls. The smarter ones spoon feed us with everything the have and we accept it and submit. We are the milking pot. 
But not everyone are trapped though there are those of us that stay clear off the grid of control. Those are that other specie of humans that cannot be tainted, used or abused. But there are very few of them around. They try to stay off the grid as much as possible.
But not everyone are trapped though there are those of us that stay clear off the grid of control. Those are that other specie of humans that cannot be tainted, used or abused. But there are very few of them around. They try to stay off the grid as much as possible. 1 person likes this
@suzzy3 (8341)
•
11 Jun 12
Survival of the fittest is mainly applied to the animal world.In our society the weak normally get looked after by government benefits,charitable institutions ect.As far as I am concerned these days it is mental strength that gets most people through difficult times.I do agree with you that personal experience will help you survive and face difficult times.If something goes wrong we try to find someone else that has already been through exactly the same experience to help us survive and learn from whatever it is we are facing or have faced.I do beleave all the time mankind learns we become wiser and pass that wisdom on to others whether it is a better way to make a cake or how to deal with crime or medical advances.We should all be willing to learn from each other or from experience in order to help others survive,succeed.Pass your wisdom on and help others then we all stand a much better chance of surviving.Thank you for a good discussion.
@Lorden (348)
• South Africa
11 Jun 12
Perhaps in times when there wasn't much of a developed medical industry, survival was only for the fittest.
However, today even the weaker of the species can survive a while longer simply with the help of medicine.
Does this mean we're about the only species that actually gets weaker as the weaker specimens live longer to give offspring, while in nature it's only the strongest and "fittest" animals that live to give birth to the next generation? Well there's something to ponder I guess.
1 person likes this
@China5Flower (225)
• Guangzhou, China
12 Jun 12
Yes, I believe mankind is evoluting all the time.Weak ones are replaced by stronger ones. That's the law happening to all parts of the earth.For human beings, every brain takes the consciousness of millions years ago when beings were produced. And this consciousness is the essence of human evolution since the best and fittest one is always kept.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
13 Jun 12
And we still haven't figured out how to get along and cooperate. So are you saying that our 'consciousness' is one of kill and destroy?
