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.
“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!