Not sure, D - there seem to be an awful lot of people around who ain't that well adapted to their (social) environment!

takes time :)

well one example is - humans have the hardware for complicated and written comunication, which has worked out well for them. of course it has both positive and negative social uses. but evolution doesn't really care about "positive" and "negative" social values - just as long as life is able to make more life under whatever circumstances - that's all that matters - that's considered positive by evolution's values. right?

That is my point. Except for evolution there is no reason to believe in natural selection. Show me another manifistation of natural selection.

In the real world it is survival of the luckiest.

I will explain this as carefully as possible.
In the real world it is survival of the luckiest, an argument that agrees with the Bible.

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race [is] not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all"

Just a warning the Bible does not believe in survival of the fittest only survival of the luckiest. I believe the Bible's claim is scientifically accurate; no form of strength guarantees success, it is all luck and chance.

I will put this in science talk for you, instead of monsters I will say this. The Bible claims and the real world proves that it is survival of the luckiest, then to disprove the Bible you HAVE to explain why there aren't a large amount of vestigial limbs or parts.
To explain the question plainly How does evolution prevent more vestigial limbs, like a finger eventually growing on your back or something.

If you were to grow a finger on your back how would evolution prevent you from reproducing? You can't respond with a theoretical argument you have to give a factual mechanism. DNA is a mechanism, survival of the fittest is a theory. You have to respond with a mechanism for it to be a scientific response.

Many years ago I remember the tale of the months in an industrial city. It was noticed that as industrial smog changed the colours of the surfaces available to a certain species of moth, those moths survived whose markings were offered better camouflage by the polluted surfaces. This was cited as natural selection.


In the bacterial world, many bugs have the ability to become resistent to antibiotics. In hospitals, these germs are found quite commonly but they are much less common in an environment where antibiotics are not prevalent. Presumably that is because diverting cell resources to the production of unnecessary enzymes to break down the antibiotics confers no survival advantage in that environment.

I think it is very hard to argue that natural selection (of possibly random mutations) does not occur. What this proves needs further consideration.

Evolution appears to work not only by survival of the fittest, but by the death of the weaker, and of the unfit. Without death,it just would not work. The survival of the fit (better adapted) is a by-product of the death of the poorly adapted.

Interesting point of view.....which is of course correct.

Nishaun, this is my last attempt at this.

A finger is an incredibly complex thing. It contains muscles, nerves, blood vessels and tendons, all arranged in particular very precise ways. Look at one of your fingers for a moment, and think about all the things you can do with it.

Now, for a finger to arise in an evolutionary context takes a long time and many, many steps. A finger does not just magically appear in a single individual in a single generation. If it did, as I said earlier, it would not have evolved, it would be a birth defect. It would not be encoded in the DNA. Therefore it would not be inheritable. Whether it stops the creature breeding or not is largely irrelevant, because it will not be carried on.

So again, are you talking about individual creatures with birth defects, or about genetic lines that breed true with a particular characteristic?

If it's the latter, then the finger (or ear) on the back would start as a small fleshy nodule. That would have to offer some kind of advantage that increased the survival/breeding chances of the individuals having it enough to make it more likely that the gene for the nodule was passed on than for the genes of creatures without the nodule. The nodule would then have to be refined through an *extremely* long sequence of random but favourable mutations (keeping in mind that the vast majority of mutations are unfavourable, as you said). This would literally take millions of years to occur.

I'm not 'proving evolution using evolution' as you've repeatedly claimed. Rather, I'm explaining the way in which evolutionary theory accounts for the world we see around us. It's all I can do, because I can't 'prove' evolution or natural selection in any other way than through inferences about the world around us. And I recognise that other sets of inferences are possible.

You've said you don't like the 'misunderstanding' statement, and I respect that. But I do think you may be confused about the probabilistic basis of natural selection. This occurs, not for an individual, but for a population. Agreed, a finger on your back will not stop an individual from surviving or reproducing. But across the whole population, will individuals with fingers on their backs be more likely or less likely than individuals without to successfully breed? That is the mechanism, so looking at the case of a single individual does not help.

One further note: "survival of the fittest" is an oxymoron, since "fittest" in this instance simply means "most likely to survive". And we found out which is most likely to survive through seeing which do survive. So the phrase is reduced to "survival of the survivors": oxymoron.

But the exact same analysis applies to your proposed alternative locution "survival of the luckiest". If you're lucky, you get to survive, so we're back to "survival of the survivors".

Thanks D.Allen you have given me an actual response, Bravus has been ignoring my actual question. I will respond to you with this question, how does evolution guarantee the death of the weak and prevent more pointless mutations (like three eyed monsters)? That is the mechanism I am looking for.

Thanks for your answer but I have made no such argument. Bravus was arguing against my 99 snafus principle (read back if you missed it). He used natural selection as a counter argument. The basis of the principle is that because of randomness in this world, many many deformities would also occur alongside the perfections. I believe the probability of the deformed surviving is far greater than a lucky positive change. So the mechanism I was searching for is a mechanism that ensures the death of the weak.

I'm not an expert, but I'll hazard the statement that "evolution" doesn't guarantee anything itself. It is just an explanation of how things work. "Environment" is an all important factor. Life in the ocean, for example, has different problems to overcome. There are all sorts of weird animals down there that could not survive up here on dry land. Animals with eyes on the ends of "stalks" and intelligent octopi with 8? arms with suckers on them - no bones except it's beak.

To move through water, air, or on land all require different body forms for optional performance.

If food is scarce only those who move the fastest, will get any. The slower ones die off.

So what we consider a monster here on dry land, might in just the right environment be the ones better able to get everything they need from that special environment. The ancestors of the octopus never survived on dry land (if ever they were on it) long enough to become the octopus we now know about.

Evolutionary theory as a theory doesn't guarantee anything. It's just the "facts of life" - if you can't keep up with the rest they will beat you out of your share. If you can't compete, they will crush you.