New Observation Debunks “Survival Of the Fittest”

A few articles this year (here and here) have questioned and also put to rest the invented scientific law by Darwinian evolution, “survival of the fittest.” New invented scientific laws have emerge like “mating between the quickest”  or “survival of the slowest” and on March 18th issue of science, we see the complete departure of “survival of the fittest”

“In some cases, less fit organisms may out-survive their in-shape counterparts, according to a study reported in the March 18 issue of Science. The finding surprised researchers who assumed less fit organisms would be the eventual losers in evolution’s fight for survival.”  

The bacteria were still members of the same species, E. coli. And beneficial mutations are the interpretation of the researcher. Sometimes what appears beneficial in one context can have negative consequences in other parts. A new observation outside the lab has confirmed this proposal that debunks “survial of the fittest” by studying a creature known as, rhabdopleurid.

In PhysOrg

“We think that change is always going to lead us to a better place, that evolution is always going to lead to something better,” said Mitchell, a University at Buffalo geology professor. “But all this progress in making all these wonderful pelagic graptolites didn’t lead them to take over the world. They didn’t survive, but these simple dudes, these bottom-dwelling creatures, did.”

On the other hand, you have zooplankton relatives (graptolites) evolving rapidly breaking off into new species while creating all kinds of new fancy traits according to the story of evolution. And yet, the graptolites went extinct unlike the rhabdopleurids that survived in the evolutionary time frame for 500 million years! Unchanged to this day! So why get fit when it leads to extinction?

One can imagine the spin in trying to explain this in the evolution framework. The author of the paper, Mitchell said evolution had a “conservative approach” and compared it to different styles to investing in a portfolio.  The problem with that analogy is that nature has no investment goals where it decides it will get aggressive in one creature and then non-aggressive in another creature, thus comparing  it to a gamble or risk. That behavior comes from intelligence rather than a mindless process! In other words, the creatures do not hand-pick mutations for their long-term investment goals!

And let’s say for the sake of argument that something like that could happen, what creature would sit tight for a supposed 500 million years that allowed the fittest boom with various fancy traits to past them by? Would you then compare that behavior (supposedly evolution) to an old person who decides not upgrade their old VCR player for a new Blu-ray dvd player?

The evolutionary explanation? Stuff happens! The data continues its strong pace in predicting the ‘theory’ rather than the other way around. Investing with goals is done by intelligent design not by a mindless process!

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “New Observation Debunks “Survival Of the Fittest”

  1. Michael can’t even get past his first sentence without a factual error.

    A few articles this year (here and here) have questioned and also put to rest the invented scientific law by Darwinian evolution, “survival of the fittest.”

    Herbert Spencer coined the term “survival of the fittest,” not Charles Darwin. Spencer applied it to his theory of economics.

    Although Darwin did use this term once, he felt it was at best an analogy to natural selection. Modern evolutionary biologists generally eschew it among themselves, because it is not an accurate portrayal of natural selection.

    New invented scientific laws have emerge [sic] like “mating between the quickest” or [sic] “survival of the slowest” …

    Second sentence, second factual error. There are no such scientific laws. (Michael may be making a crude attempt at satire; if so it falls flat. Poe’s Law states that it is generally impossible to tell the difference between creationism and a parody thereof, because they are so similar.)

    Film at 11.

  2. STEP 1: Nitpick about survival of the fittest. STEP 2: Proceed to use a non-scientific so-called law to make fun of his second supposed error. Never a dull moment with you Olorin.

  3. Since you are SO very committed to science and the evolutionary method which explains everything (unlike creationism of course), I will answer your questions after you send a blistering science broadside to a creationist organization (e.g. ICR, AiG, creation.com) and they post a reply on the Internet admitting defeat and disbanding of their organization. Since they are some of the main sources of creationist propaganda, they would be the logical place for you to start instead of a lowly WordPress blog. So demolish those PhD creationist IDiots with the weight of your evolutionary science gleamed from all those science journals you read! Forget lowly bloggers! Smite them with truth Olorin!

  4. I will answer your questions after you send a blistering science broadside to a creationist organization (e.g. ICR, AiG, creation.com) and they post a reply on the Internet admitting defeat and disbanding of their organization.

    In other words, you have no answers to the questions.

    Actually, I did send a question to AiG once about a claim one of their geologists made. He almost bent himself double changing the subject. Never did get a straight reply. But then I didn’t expect to.

    Now, how about sending your creationist explanation for water-saturated rocks to the American Geophysical Union? Maybe they’ll admit defeat and disappear in a puff of magic smoke.

  5. In other words, you have no answers to the questions.

    Oh, I have answers but you’ll just dismiss them and commit logical fallacies while peddling your usual canard. Seems you don’t plan to evolve anytime soon. Keep wiggling though.

    Actually, I did send a question to AiG once about a claim one of their geologists made. He almost bent himself double changing the subject. Never did get a straight reply. But then I didn’t expect to.

    Post it then, what are you waiting for? Show your science skills, dazzle us. And again, why pick on lowly bloggers? You should be spamming these organizations with those pretentious PhD creationist and when they can’t reply properly, create your own blog and expose their sorry unscientific ramblings. Poor Michael might not even have a hard science degree.

    Now, how about sending your creationist explanation for water-saturated rocks to the American Geophysical Union? Maybe they’ll admit defeat and disappear in a puff of magic smoke.

    That’s not an explanation, that’s a musing on my part. It is consistent both in an evolutionary and creationist framework. For me to study this and publish my findings (assuming I find in favour of creationism), would you be the one funding my research?

  6. In other words, you have no answers to the questions.

    Oh, I have answers but you’ll just dismiss them and commit logical fallacies

    In other words, you have no answers that will stand up to scrutiny.

    .

    Re saturated rocks—

    That’s not an explanation, that’s a musing on my part. It is consistent both in an evolutionary and creationist framework.

    It is also consistent with leprechauns filling the rock with water. It is always possible to find multiple theories that are “consistent with” a set of facts. (Cf. Kuhn & Feyerabend.) The trick is to eliminate as many of the other theories as possible, by devising tests which predict one result for your favorite theory, and a different result for the competing theories. That is what scientists do.[1]

    Creationists,on the other hand, start searching for more and more “consistent with” evidence, evidence that will confirm their pet theory. They do not look for contrary evidence. And creationists do not conduct experiments: If the experiment should turn out well, then it merely confirms what they already knew (no gain); if it come a cropper, then they must find a way to deny the results (loss). So they rely on scientists to do the heavy lifting. In that way, they can claim confirmation from a propitious result, but merely ignore or dismiss a contrary finding.

    SO: the next step in your rock study is: (a) to search the literature to find as much evidence as possible that is consistent with your hypothesis; OR (b) to devise a test that will discriminate between your creationist hypothesis and geological scenarios.

    When considering your choice, think “What would AiG/ICR do?” You might even ask them for ideas: What experiments do they plan to conduct in the near future to test their hypotheses?

    ===============

    [1] You may recall the famous Michaelson-Morley experiments for the ether, or Sadi Carnot’s .tests for the attributes of caloric. .

  7. Post it then, what are you waiting for? Show your science skills, dazzle us. And again, why pick on lowly bloggers? You should be spamming these organizations with those pretentious PhD creationist and when they can’t reply properly, create your own blog and expose their sorry unscientific ramblings

    n account of the AiG incident five years ago, is below.[n]

    Lowly bloggers often influence a wider audience. Does anyone who is not already a frothing-at-the-mouth creationist read papers in Answers Journal. Those people, like Romney’s 47%, will merely dismiss counterarguments out of hand.. But many undecided lurkers survey the blogs—several questioning souls have dropped into these premises in the past couple of years. Besides, AiG, ICR, Discovery Institute, et al. tend to prohibit or censor comments.[1]

    There are many bloggers out there with more science qualifications.[2] Where I think I can help is using my legal background to analyze Michael’s arguments. Most of them really involve little knowledge of the subject. Rather,they are logical fallacies, dubious reading comprehension, and obvious ignorance as to how science operates—that aqrea, I am acquainted with. I am a member of the AAAS Committee on Social Policy, which keeps a finger in that pie. I do visit other blogs, but under different noms de clavier.

    Poor Michael might not even have a hard science degree.

    What was your first clue? When he called zinc a “complex organic compound”? When he said that melanin encased in amber is “soft tissue”? When he claimed that the persistence of a spider for 230My disproves evolution? When he claimed that all mammals, including humans, have protofeathers of the kind recently found on dinosaur fossils?

    A couple years ago, several readers pestered Michael to reveal his background or qualifications in any form of science. He ignored repeated requests for about a year. He would only admit to once having watched a cousin do something sciencey on TV.

    ================

    [1] I was the reason that Evolution News & Views banished all comments a few years ago. Dembski’s Uncommon Descent banished a comment a couple years ago when she was able to show that Darwin’s natural selection met Dembski’s definition of an “intelligent agent.” I thank Michael periodically for continuing to countenance comments: Mahalo nui, Mikala!

    [2] I have never even taken a high-school biology course.

    [n] AiG News featured a picture of a field of rocks including a supposedly million-year-old rock with a toy car embedded in it. It smelled fishy. I wrote, asking for more detail. They sent a larger copy of the photo, nothing else. I wrote back, asking for a geologist’s analysis. An answering e-mail, signed “Staff Geologist” admitted that the rock had been found on an ocean beach, and not in the context shown in the photo. First clue. I sent the image to a friend who is a government geologist in Maui. He said it was not a rock at all, but a “brain coral.” That is, modern and easily capable of swallowing a toy car in a short time. I sent this analysis to the “Staff Geologist.” Did I receive an answer? What do you think? Several tries? Nothing. Do you still wonder why scientists call creationists “Liars for Jesus”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s