by cyberjesus 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
> If we are a product of evolution and the survival of the fittest
Evolution is not about "survival of the fittest". Darwin never said that. No one with a formal education in evolution will never say that.
Evolution is about organisms that are best suited for survival in a given environment. "Fitness" and "Strength" are in no way associated with survival.
"If we are a product of evolution and the survival of the fittest"
The most concise and accurate phrase, that I can think of, that describes Natural Selection is "Survival of the most reproductive in a given environment"
villabolo
Thanks to all of you for your comments.
So in a way we are here because of the plants. If the plants wouldnt exist with all their nutrients we wouldnt be who we are.
Interesting uh? But the plants do not need us in this system.
Animals that are adapted to wide variety of conditions (food, temperature, etc) have a better chance of survival. If you can only eat one thing, and that one thing gets wiped out by, say a virus, you're dead.
:But the plants do not need us in this system.
Animals, including humans, produce carbon dioxide. Without it, no plants could exist.
Farkel
Plants depend on animals; many plants need them pollinate and to scatter seeds. That's why thistles stick to your clothes; they also stick to animal fur and can be distributed thereby. That's why various fruits and flowers have such eye-catching and nose-enticing colors and fragrances. And then there are of course the plants that eat animals (especially insects).
Can plants think then ? "I will evolve a tasty fruit to attract fruit eaters" (see above), or I will evolve the ability to smell like rotting meat to attract flies, what happens in the millenia until the tasty fruit has evolved, or the smell ?
I know that is an over simplification, but it sounds as though, when people explain it , there is a Designer (maybe called Nature) that moves the evolutionary process along. A creator figure who injects modifications all the time.
I suppose the argument is that the plants without even a vestige of the right things die out, those with a hint survive, and gradually we end up with something that works. Difficult hypothesis to prove.
Love
Wobble
We are the successful outcomes. The things that evolved with needs that either then disappeared or couldn't be easily found had a tendency to die off or else become a very niche existence.
Stop and think about why plants make fruit that is good to eat. Making fruit is a substantial drain on the plant. Are the plants just being "Nice?"
Or is the whole point to get an animal to eat the fruit and in the process, carry the seeds away and either toss or excrete (As the case may be...) the seeds elsewhere?
