ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Haha. Have you been around anyone who breeds animals? They let a lot of ones breed that have many genetic flaws especially if profit is involved. Of course the animal's basic organ systems are not compromised or it dies right off, mostly. Ideally, breeders are only supposed to breed the best stock but reality is a different matter entirely.
You misunderstand me.
"Fitness" is essentially "ability to breed".
In the wild, this means getting food, avoiding predation, finding a mate, and so forth.
In a farm, this means having the traits that the farmer wants his future animals to have.
The "fittest" animals are therefore those most suited to the farmer's needs.
Quote:
And another thing I seriously question. I picture Darwin sitting there observing wild animals searching for food, getting eaten by others or perhaps experiencing injury or accident. Maybe they cannot find food so they die from malnutrition and this, of course, as we all know, stops that animal's genetic contribution to his species right there. Darwin notes this and deducts: animal A didn't have the genes that made it as tough and strong as animal B so animal A has contributed less of it's weaker genes than animal B which lived longer thus contributing more.
He ignores the fact some animals. just like humans, are simply unlucky. They could be the superman of their species yet are not immune to the ravages of bad luck.
Firstly, Darwin did not really know about genetics.
Secondly, scientists do not ignore luck at all. A great deal of a scientist's training is devoted to understanding statistics and chance (source: I'm a trainee biologist). Evolution does not deal with individuals, but rather populations. Gene frequency is important.
(This is all an example). Say you have 100,000 rabbits. Ordinary rabbits have a 50% chance of reproducing, and they have four offspring- their population is maintained. Some rabbits have a gene that means they have a 90% chance of reproducing, and again they have four offspring. Over time, it is extremely likely that the "90% success" gene will become more frequent than the "50% success" gene.
Of course, when the "90% success" gene first appeared, that individual could have been struck by lightning and the gene died out, but generally the individuals that are fitter are more likely to survive.
In short, I don't think you have provided a valid critique at all- it is based on a misunderstanding of how science works.
Quote:
Now let's look at the human situation. Person A has a barn full of chickens that he shelters, feeds, coddles, basically, compared to what wild animals endure on their own, finding their own food, shelter, harsher elements, no help from anyone. Virtually all the chickens live, regardless of their genes. Sure some of them have a disorganized genetic structure, they die either before their egg hatches or shortly after but a great deal more would die in the first few years of life if they were strictly on their own. Because the human has met the daily needs of each individual bird. the majority will contribute their genes to the next generation. See how Darwin's theory no longer fits? You cannot fit it into this scenario. This scenario needs it's own theory imo.
For goodness sake, it isn't about Darwin!
It does still fit. The population just won't evolve very much. The basic theory is "evolution is caused by natural selection". If there is little natural selection, there is little evolution. Do we need a new "theory of electricity" for when we turn the lights off, or a new "theory of gravity" for when we're in space?
18 Nov 2013, 6:32 am
